ArticleClinical epidemiology2026
Heart Failure Phenotypes Across Age Groups in the Danish Administrative Registers.
Article in Clinical epidemiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The Danish administrative registers are a powerful tool for heart failure (HF) research. However, the coding system has historically does not distinguished between HF phenotypes. We aimed to identify the distribution of HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF), and preserved EF (HFpEF) within the Danish National Patient Register overall and across age groups. Methods: We manually reviewed electronic health records of all patients with an incident primary diagnosis of HF (ICD-10: I50) at two large university hospitals in the Capital Region of Denmark between June 2021 and May 2024. HFrEF was defined as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40%, HFmrEF as 41-49%, and HFpEF as ≥50%. Patients without available echocardiographic measurements were classified together with the HFpEF group. The phenotypic distribution was stratified by age groups (<65, 65-79, and ≥80 years) and six clinical subgroups (female sex, obesity, chronic kidney disease, atrial fibrillation/flutter, diabetes, and ischemic heart disease). Results: Following manual review of 1888 patients with a primary diagnosis of HF (median age 74, 67% male), 1687 (89%) had HFrEF, 72 (4%) HFmrEF, and 129 (7%) HFpEF. HFrEF was dominant across all ages but was lower with advancing age: 95% in patients aged <65 years, 90% in those aged 65-79, and 83% among those aged ≥80. In all clinical subgroups, the proportion of HFrEF remained high, ranging from 83 to 90%. Conclusion: Patients with an incident hospital diagnosis of HF at two Danish university hospitals predominantly presented with HFrEF. This phenotype distribution may reflect that of patients diagnosed with HF in the Danish National Patient Register. Even among those aged ≥80 years, fewer than one in five patients presented with HFmrEF or HFpEF. These findings provide a necessary reference for interpreting Danish registry-based HF data and inform the design of future registry-based clinical trials.
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.