ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Recovery beyond ejection fraction after takotsubo syndrome: a multidimensional framework for risk-enriched follow-up.
Review in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Takotsubo syndrome (TTS) is defined by transient regional ventricular dysfunction, and normalization of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) remains the conventional marker of recovery. This endpoint is clinically useful but does not capture the tempo or full clinical breadth of convalescence. Registry and multimodality studies indicate that ventricular recovery may be delayed or asynchronous; some survivors report persistent symptoms or functional limitation, whereas others have subclinical abnormalities in myocardial deformation, tissue characteristics, energetics, microvascular function, or inflammation. The clinical meaning and causal attribution of many subclinical findings remain uncertain. This State-of-the-Art Review examines how LVEF became the default recovery endpoint and synthesizes evidence across mechanical, clinical/functional, and biological/subclinical domains. We propose a staged framework in which recovery trajectory, persistent symptoms, and severe cardiovascular complications identify unresolved cardiovascular recovery concerns, whereas malignancy, neurological disease, physical triggers, and major systemic comorbidity primarily indicate competing risk and a need for coordinated care. Strain imaging, cardiovascular magnetic resonance, cardiopulmonary exercise testing, and structured patient-reported outcomes should be selected only when they address a defined clinical question. Management remains indication-driven, with complication surveillance and targeted rehabilitation or psychological care when limitations persist. The framework organizes clinical reasoning and trial design but is not a validated risk score or management algorithm. Prospective studies should define temporal recovery stages, establish a pragmatic core recovery set, and test whether adjunctive assessments or recovery-directed interventions improve clinically meaningful 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.