Heart Failure in Cardiomyopathies: A Position Paper from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiomyopathies are a heterogeneous group of heart muscle diseases and an important cause of heart failure (HF). Current knowledge on incidence, pathophysiology and natural history of HF in cardiomyopathies is limited, and distinct features of their therapeutic responses have not been systematically addressed. Therefore, this position paper focuses on epidemiology, pathophysiology, natural history and latest developments in treatment of HF in patients with dilated (DCM), hypertrophic (HCM) and restrictive (RCM) cardiomyopathies. In DCM, HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) has high incidence and prevalence and represents the most frequent cause of death, despite improvements in treatment. In addition, advanced HF in DCM is one of the leading indications for heart transplantation. In HCM, HF with preserved ejection (HFpEF) affects most patients with obstructive, and ∼10% of patients with non-obstructive HCM. A timely treatment is important, since development of advanced HF, although rare in HCM, portends a poor prognosis. In RCM, HFpEF is common, while HFrEF occurs later and more frequently in amyloidosis or iron overload/haemochromatosis. Irrespective of RCM aetiology, HF is a harbinger of a poor outcome. Recent advances in our understanding of the mechanisms underlying the development of HF in cardiomyopathies have significant implications for therapeutic decision-making. In addition, new aetiology-specific treatment options (e.g. enzyme replacement therapy, transthyretin stabilizers, immunoadsorption, immunotherapy, etc.) have shown a potential to improve outcomes. Still, causative therapies of many cardiomyopathies are lacking, highlighting the need for the development of effective strategies to prevent and treat HF in cardiomyopathies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.016 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".