FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2783138269> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2783138269 endingPage "432" @default.
• W2783138269 startingPage "431" @default.
• W2783138269 abstract "The quantity ‘ejection fraction’ (EF) is among the most ingrained and commonly used quantities in clinical medicine. EF is used in heart failure (HF) for diagnosis, characterization, prognosis, patient triage, and treatment selection,1 and continues to be a fundamental entry criterion for HF and post-myocardial infarction clinical trials. HF with reduced EF (HFrEF; EF <40%) is well characterized and treatable; HF with preserved EF (HFpEF; EF ≥50%) is a common and complex syndrome so far without evidence-based therapy; and HF with mid-range EF (HFmrEF; EF 40–49%) was recently introduced to distinguish the grey zone where EF is not normal but there is no evidence-based therapy.1 However, concurrent with improved understanding of different EF phenotypes,2 an increasing criticism of EF as a measurement and concept has emerged, and in this issue of the Journal, Mele et al. offer a critical appraisal of the EF quantity.3 Are these concerns reasonable? What are the unmet needs in HF? They are: (i) improved resources and logistics for increasing HF care needs; (ii) improved utilization of existing evidence-based therapies in HFrEF; and (iii) evidence for existing and novel interventions in HFpEF (and HFmrEF) as well as in acute HF. Heart failure affects more than 2% of the population,4 is the most common cause of hospitalization,5 and is among the most common causes of death, with mortality at 1 year in population-wide registries ranging between 10% and 35%.6, 7 Moreover, health care-related costs associated with an increasing HF prevalence are projected to increase three-fold between 2010 and 2030.8 This means that every clinician encounters HF, and important patient conversations and treatment decisions occur in emergency departments, internal medicine, cardiology and geriatrics wards, intensive care and peri-operative settings, palliative, hospice, and home care, and outpatient care in the specialist, generalist, and primary care settings. HF care is sub-optimal in non-specialist settings.7, 9 How could clinicians understand HF and make adequate treatment decisions in these diverse settings if not with the help of EF? In this context, EF is not a limitation but a tool. In HFrEF, we are excited about novel interventions and positive trials, but as clinician-scientists, we would make perhaps a greater difference if we developed tools to optimize utilization of existing interventions. While angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker therapy and beta-blockers are generally well used (∼80–90% of HFrEF patients, although often with sub-optimal dosing), use of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (about one-third), cardiac resynchronization therapy, and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (highly variable geographically but overall much less than half of all patients who would benefit) is much worse.10 The introduction of sacubitril/valsartan has likewise been highly variable, and durable left ventricular assist devices remain reserved for those who by luck are referred in the right context and at the right time.11 What better way to standardize care and implement quality assurance and utilization measures than by using EF? Again, EF is a not a limitation but a tool. In ongoing and planned HF trials, EF remains a fundamental entry criterion. Trialists and sponsors appear to believe that HFrEF and HFpEF are different syndromes, and are beginning to learn where in the HF phenotype spectrum HFmrEF may fit.2 If many patients with HFrEF and HFmrEF have an ischaemic event as primary underlying cause,12, 13 whereas a patient with HFpEF has hypertension and co-morbidities contributing to a progressive syndrome,14 then EF is a useful categorizer, which suggests that treatment targets may be different and that trial approaches should consequently be different in these settings. Many might concede that EF is the best measure to categorize HF currently available but argue that for future classification, trials, and eventually treatment decisions, there are better classifiers or phenotyping tools. Certainly this should and is being explored. On a broad scale, drug and device development programmes may take several forms as follows:15 (i) testing existing HFrEF drugs in HFmrEF and HFpEF.16 There is potential certainly in HFmrEF and if generic drugs prove effective in HFrEF and possibly HFpEF then many patients can be helped at low costs to society; here EF and particularly HFmrEF represent an opportunity; (ii) testing novel interventions in HF using EF criteria but with additional entry criteria for optimal enrichment and potential treatment response, such as in the ongoing PARAGON-HF trial requiring evidence of structural heart disease; (iii) novel interventions and novel targets, such as co-morbidity-driven inflammation and microvascular endothelial dysfunction in HFpEF.14 Until novel classifiers and targets are reproducible and treatable, we are obliged to use what we have: EF and the various evidence-based and guideline-recommended treatments indicated according to EF.1Conflict of interest: none declared." @default.
• W2783138269 created "2018-01-26" @default.
• W2783138269 creator A5015344056 @default.
• W2783138269 creator A5021330195 @default.
• W2783138269 creator A5067972379 @default.
• W2783138269 date "2018-01-15" @default.
• W2783138269 modified "2023-10-03" @default.
• W2783138269 title "Is ejection fraction in heart failure a limitation or an opportunity?" @default.
• W2783138269 cites W1966912437 @default.
• W2783138269 cites W2126617656 @default.
• W2783138269 cites W2281894904 @default.
• W2783138269 cites W2292856586 @default.
• W2783138269 cites W2488926212 @default.
• W2783138269 cites W2586663735 @default.
• W2783138269 cites W2590976410 @default.
• W2783138269 cites W2591930746 @default.
• W2783138269 cites W2745942654 @default.
• W2783138269 cites W2758197294 @default.
• W2783138269 cites W2759904926 @default.
• W2783138269 cites W2766839341 @default.
• W2783138269 cites W2782250911 @default.
• W2783138269 cites W2917462181 @default.
• W2783138269 cites W4293860347 @default.
• W2783138269 cites W59066530 @default.
• W2783138269 doi "https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.1106" @default.
• W2783138269 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29333631" @default.
• W2783138269 hasPublicationYear "2018" @default.
• W2783138269 type Work @default.
• W2783138269 sameAs 2783138269 @default.
• W2783138269 citedByCount "15" @default.
• W2783138269 countsByYear W27831382692018 @default.
• W2783138269 countsByYear W27831382692020 @default.
• W2783138269 countsByYear W27831382692021 @default.
• W2783138269 countsByYear W27831382692022 @default.
• W2783138269 countsByYear W27831382692023 @default.
• W2783138269 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2783138269 hasAuthorship W2783138269A5015344056 @default.
• W2783138269 hasAuthorship W2783138269A5021330195 @default.
• W2783138269 hasAuthorship W2783138269A5067972379 @default.
• W2783138269 hasBestOaLocation W27831382691 @default.
• W2783138269 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2783138269 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W2783138269 hasConcept C152541439 @default.
• W2783138269 hasConcept C164705383 @default.
• W2783138269 hasConcept C177713679 @default.
• W2783138269 hasConcept C194828623 @default.
• W2783138269 hasConcept C204787440 @default.
• W2783138269 hasConcept C2777099384 @default.
• W2783138269 hasConcept C2777120189 @default.
• W2783138269 hasConcept C2778198053 @default.
• W2783138269 hasConcept C2908647359 @default.
• W2783138269 hasConcept C500558357 @default.
• W2783138269 hasConcept C535046627 @default.
• W2783138269 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2783138269 hasConcept C78085059 @default.
• W2783138269 hasConcept C99454951 @default.
• W2783138269 hasConceptScore W2783138269C126322002 @default.
• W2783138269 hasConceptScore W2783138269C142724271 @default.
• W2783138269 hasConceptScore W2783138269C152541439 @default.
• W2783138269 hasConceptScore W2783138269C164705383 @default.
• W2783138269 hasConceptScore W2783138269C177713679 @default.
• W2783138269 hasConceptScore W2783138269C194828623 @default.
• W2783138269 hasConceptScore W2783138269C204787440 @default.
• W2783138269 hasConceptScore W2783138269C2777099384 @default.
• W2783138269 hasConceptScore W2783138269C2777120189 @default.
• W2783138269 hasConceptScore W2783138269C2778198053 @default.
• W2783138269 hasConceptScore W2783138269C2908647359 @default.
• W2783138269 hasConceptScore W2783138269C500558357 @default.
• W2783138269 hasConceptScore W2783138269C535046627 @default.
• W2783138269 hasConceptScore W2783138269C71924100 @default.
• W2783138269 hasConceptScore W2783138269C78085059 @default.
• W2783138269 hasConceptScore W2783138269C99454951 @default.
• W2783138269 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W2783138269 hasLocation W27831382691 @default.
• W2783138269 hasLocation W27831382692 @default.
• W2783138269 hasOpenAccess W2783138269 @default.
• W2783138269 hasPrimaryLocation W27831382691 @default.
• W2783138269 hasRelatedWork W1964205598 @default.
• W2783138269 hasRelatedWork W2051712573 @default.
• W2783138269 hasRelatedWork W2061321770 @default.
• W2783138269 hasRelatedWork W2077083067 @default.
• W2783138269 hasRelatedWork W2334396920 @default.
• W2783138269 hasRelatedWork W2538662566 @default.
• W2783138269 hasRelatedWork W2789205885 @default.
• W2783138269 hasRelatedWork W2965474825 @default.
• W2783138269 hasRelatedWork W3033076790 @default.
• W2783138269 hasRelatedWork W4200030969 @default.
• W2783138269 hasVolume "20" @default.
• W2783138269 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2783138269 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2783138269 magId "2783138269" @default.
• W2783138269 workType "article" @default.