Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSavarese, Gianluigi
dc.contributor.authorGatti, Paolo
dc.contributor.authorBenson, Lina
dc.contributor.authorAdamo, Marianna
dc.contributor.authorChioncel, Ovidiu
dc.contributor.authorCrespo-Leiro, María Generosa
dc.contributor.authorAnker, Stefan D.
dc.contributor.authorCoats, Andrew J.S.
dc.contributor.authorFilippatos, Gerasimos
dc.contributor.authorLainscak, Mitja
dc.contributor.authorMcdonagh, Theresa
dc.contributor.authorMebazaa, Alexandre
dc.contributor.authorMetra, Marco
dc.contributor.authorPiepoli, Massimo
dc.contributor.authorRosano, Giuseppe M.
dc.contributor.authorRuschitzka, Frank
dc.contributor.authorSeferovic, Petar
dc.contributor.authorVolterrani, Maurizio
dc.contributor.authorMaggioni, Aldo P.
dc.contributor.authorLund, Lars H.
dc.date.accessioned2024-06-20T09:12:22Z
dc.date.available2024-06-20T09:12:22Z
dc.date.issued2023-11-15
dc.identifier.citationSavarese G, Gatti P, Benson L, Adamo M, Chioncel O, Crespo-Leiro MG, Anker SD, Coats AJS, Filippatos G, Lainscak M, McDonagh T, Mebazaa A, Metra M, Piepoli MF, Rosano GMC, Ruschitzka F, Seferovic P, Volterrani M, Maggioni AP, Lund LH. Left ventricular ejection fraction digit bias and reclassification of heart failure with mildly reduced vs reduced ejection fraction based on the 2021 definition and classification of heart failure. Am Heart J. 2024 Jan;267:52-61.es_ES
dc.identifier.issn0002-8703
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2183/37198
dc.description.abstract[Abstract] Aims: Aims were to evaluate (1) reclassification of patients from heart failure with mildly reduced (HFmrEF) to reduced (HFrEF) ejection fraction when an EF = 40% was considered as HFrEF, (2) role of EF digit bias, ie, EF reporting favouring 5% increments; (3) outcomes in relation to missing and biased EF reports, in a large multinational HF registry. Methods and results: Of 25,154 patients in the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) HF Long-Term registry, 17% had missing EF and of those with available EF, 24% had HFpEF (EF≥50%), 21% HFmrEF (40%-49%) and 55% HFrEF (<40%) according to the 2016 ESC guidelines´ classification. EF was "exactly" 40% in 7%, leading to reclassifying 34% of the HFmrEF population defined as EF = 40% to 49% to HFrEF when applying the 2021 ESC Guidelines classification (14% had HFmrEF as EF = 41% to 49% and 62% had HFrEF as EF≤40%). EF was reported as a value ending with 0 or 5 in ∼37% of the population. Such potential digit bias was associated with more missing values for other characteristics and higher risk of all-cause death and HF hospitalization. Patients with missing EF had higher risk of all-cause and CV mortality, and HF hospitalization compared to those with recorded EF. Conclusions: Many patients had reported EF = 40%. This led to substantial reclassification of EF from old HFmrEF (40%-49%) to new HFrEF (≤40%). There was considerable digit bias in EF reporting and missing EF reporting, which appeared to occur not at random and may reflect less rigorous overall care and worse outcomes.es_ES
dc.language.isoenges_ES
dc.publisherElsevieres_ES
dc.relation.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2023.11.008es_ES
dc.rightsCreative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0)es_ES
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/*
dc.subjectHeart failurees_ES
dc.subjectVentricular Function, Leftes_ES
dc.titleLeft ventricular ejection fraction digit bias and reclassification of heart failure with mildly reduced vs reduced ejection fraction based on the 2021 definition and classification of heart failurees_ES
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlees_ES
dc.rights.accessinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesses_ES
UDC.journalTitleAmerican Heart Journales_ES
UDC.volume267es_ES
UDC.startPage52es_ES
UDC.endPage61es_ES
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.ahj.2023.11.008


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Thumbnail
Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record