ArticleESC heart failure2025
A novel treatment score (QUAD score) to promote treatment optimization in heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction.
Article in ESC heart failure, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bioimpedance utility in heart failure.Heart failure reviews · 2026Review
- Article
- A novel treatment score (QUAD score) to promote treatment optimization in heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction.ESC heart failure · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsTo help avoid therapeutic inertia, we developed a pragmatic treatment score (QUAD Score) for use in daily practice by healthcare professionals managing patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 50% and heart failure. We now investigate the association between achieved QUAD scores and 1 year outcomes.
methodsThis was a multicentre cohort study in consecutive patients with incident heart failure and LVEF <50%, who completed therapy titration between January 2021 and June 2023. The primary outcome was a composite of first hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) and all-cause mortality at 1 year after final therapy titration, for QUAD scores that were poor (<8), good (8-14) or excellent (15-24).
resultsData were analysed from 1691 participants, collected from 10 UK centres, of whom 30% were women and 82% were White. Median age, N terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NTproBNP) and LVEF were 70 (59-78.5) years, 1624 (536-4138) ng/L and 34 (25-38) %, respectively. At the start of therapy titration, only 97 (5%) patients were naïve to any of the four pillars of therapy. After investigator-declared final titration, QUAD scores were excellent in 806 (48%), good in 382 (22%) and poor in 503 (30%) patients. Patients who failed eventually to achieve a good or excellent QUAD score were more often women, older and had poorer renal function and higher plasma NTproBNP (P < 0.01). The median number of days to final therapy titration was longer in those who achieved an excellent QUAD score, [174 (99-290) days,133 (80-232) days and 108 (57-193) days P < 0.01, for excellent, good and poor QUAD groups, respectively. There was wide variation in titration schedules across participating centres and overall, 33% of patients completed therapy titration within 90 days, 63% within 6 months and 88% within 1 year. The primary composite outcome at 1 year for those with poor, good and excellent QUAD scores were respectively 16.9%, 9.4% and 5.6%, (log rank P < 0.01), for mortality were 13.1%, 6.5% and 2.4% (log rank P < 0.001) and for first HHF were 7.7%, 3.9% and 3.2% (log rank P < 0.001).
conclusionsThe QUAD score is a simple tool that can help audit and incentivize uptake of guideline-recommended therapy for HFrEF and prevent treatment inertia. Excellent QUAD scores are associated with better outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.