The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 9 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Hypertension management in obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients treated with cardiac myosin inhibitors - real world data
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Management of hypertension (HTN) in obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (oHCM) is challenging because blood pressure (BP)-directed therapies may exacerbate left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) obstruction. Cardiac myosin inhibitors (CMIs), such as mavacamten, reduce hypercontractility and LVOT gradients, but management of concomitant BP-directed therapies in routine practice remains uncertain. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective single-center cohort study of adults with oHCM treated with mavacamten. Patients were stratified by pre-existing HTN status, with clinical, medication, BP, and echocardiographic data collected at baseline and approximately three months. BP-directed therapies included renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, and diuretics. Beta-blockers and calcium channel blockers were described separately because of their common use for LVOT obstruction, symptom control, or arrhythmia/rate control. RESULTS: Among 34 patients, 23 (67.6%) had pre-existing HTN. At three months, BP-directed therapies among patients with HTN included renin-angiotensin system inhibitors in 11, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in 11, and diuretics in 4; no patient without baseline HTN received BP-directed therapy. LVOT gradients decreased significantly in the HTN and non-HTN groups, from 77.1 to 27.0 mmHg and from 66.3 to 19.3 mmHg, respectively (both p < 0.05). Systolic and diastolic BP remained stable in both groups, and no patient developed incident HTN. CONCLUSION: Following mavacamten initiation, LVOT gradients improved and BP remained stable in patients with and without HTN. These findings suggest that individualized BP management is feasible during CMI therapy and support prospective evaluation.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
In a single-center retrospective cohort of 34 adults with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy treated with mavacamten, LVOT gradients decreased significantly at approximately three months in both baseline hypertension and non-hypertension groups while blood pressure remained stable. BP-directed therapies were used only in patients with pre-existing hypertension, and no patient without baseline hypertension developed incident hypertension.
Key findings
- Among 34 patients, 23 (67.6%) had pre-existing hypertension. At approximately three months, BP-directed therapies among patients with hypertension included RAS inhibitors (n = 11), MRAs (n = 11), and diuretics (n = 4); no patient without baseline hypertension received BP-directed therapy.
- LVOT gradients decreased significantly in both groups: from 77.1 to 27.0 mmHg in the hypertension group and from 66.3 to 19.3 mmHg in the non-hypertension group (both p < 0.05; Table 2 p < 0.0001 and p = 0.0038, respectively).
- Blood pressure remained stable. In the non-hypertension group, systolic BP changed from 121.0 ± 14.7 to 126.0 ± 10.4 mmHg (p = 0.438) and diastolic BP from 67.3 ± 6.2 to 69.0 ± 9.5 mmHg (p = 0.719). In the hypertension group, systolic BP changed from 128.7 ± 10.6 to 128.8 ± 17.8 mmHg (p = 0.794) and diastolic BP from 70.7 ± 8.6 to 72.0 ± 14.5 mmHg (p = 0.224). No patient developed incident hypertension.
- Beta-blockers were used in 11/23 patients (47.8%) with hypertension and 3/11 patients (27.3%) without hypertension; calcium channel blockers were used in 4/23 patients (17.4%) with hypertension and 3/11 patients (27.3%) without hypertension.
Methods
- Retrospective single-center cohort study of adults with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy treated with mavacamten at a tertiary academic center, identified from an institutional registry and included if they had symptomatic oHCM and available baseline and approximately three-month follow-up data. Among 139 patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, 74 had obstructive physiology, and 34 treated with mavacamten comprised the analytic cohort.
- Patients were stratified by documented pre-existing hypertension before mavacamten initiation. Data extracted from the electronic medical record included demographics, comorbidities, BP measurements, medication use, and echocardiographic parameters. BP-directed therapies were limited to RAS inhibitors, MRAs, and diuretics; beta-blockers and calcium channel blockers were described separately.
- The primary outcome was change in systolic and diastolic BP at approximately three months; secondary outcomes included changes in LVOT gradient and patterns of concomitant medication use. Continuous variables are presented as mean ± standard deviation; within-group changes used paired Wilcoxon signed-rank testing, between-group comparisons used Kruskal-Wallis testing, and a two-sided p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Analyses were performed using R version 4.4.1.
Limitations
- The paper states that this is a single-center retrospective analysis with a modest sample size and short follow-up duration; medication adjustments were not protocolized and reflect real-world practice, which may introduce confounding; the sample size did not support robust comparisons according to individual BP-directed drug class or combinations; and longer-term BP outcomes and clinical endpoints were not assessed.
- Evident from the text: the observational design without a control or comparator group cannot establish causality, and findings from one tertiary academic center may not generalize to other settings.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Figures
Verification
Claims the paper makes
14 Own result · 8 Sources not found · 5 Own method · 5 Own interpretation · 2 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Among 34 patients, 23 (67.6%) had pre-existing HTN.”
- Also stated in: § 3. Results · plain
“Pre-existing HTN was present in 23 patients (67.6%) (Table 1).”
§ Hypertension management in obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients treated with cardiac myosin inhibitors -real world data > Abstract
plainn = 34- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 3. Results · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No patient without baseline HTN was receiving a BP-directed therapy.”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“no patient without baseline HTN received BP-directed therapy.”
§ Hypertension management in obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients treated with cardiac myosin inhibitors -real world data > 3. Results
plainn = 34- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the HTN group, systolic BP was unchanged from 128.7 ± 10.6 to 128.8 ± 17.8 mmHg and diastolic BP changed from 70.7 ± 8.6 to 72.0 ± 14.5 mmHg, p = 0.794 and p = 0.224, respectively.”
§ Hypertension management in obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients treated with cardiac myosin inhibitors -real world data > 3. Results
plainn = 23- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Significant LVOT gradient reduction was observed despite continuation of BP-directed therapies among patients with baseline HTN.”
§ Hypertension management in obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients treated with cardiac myosin inhibitors -real world data > 4. Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No patient developed incident HTN during follow-up.”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“no patient developed incident HTN.”
§ Hypertension management in obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients treated with cardiac myosin inhibitors -real world data > 3. Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No | 11 | 66.3 ± 25.1 | 19.3 ± 17.0 | 0.0038”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“LVOT gradients decreased significantly in the HTN and non-HTN groups, from 77.1 to 27.0 mmHg and from 66.3 to 19.3 mmHg, respectively (both p < 0.05).”
§ Hypertension management in obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients treated with cardiac myosin inhibitors -real world data > 5. Conclusion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the non-HTN group, systolic BP changed from 121.0 ± 14.7 to 126.0 ± 10.4 mmHg and diastolic BP from 67.3 ± 6.2 to 69.0 ± 9.5 mmHg, without statistically significant change, p = 0.438 and p = 0.719, respectively.”
§ Hypertension management in obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients treated with cardiac myosin inhibitors -real world data > 3. Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the non-HTN group, systolic BP changed from 121.0 ± 14.7 to 126.0 ± 10.4 mmHg and diastolic BP from 67.3 ± 6.2 to 69.0 ± 9.5 mmHg, without statistically significant change, p = 0.438 and p = 0.719, respectively.”
§ Hypertension management in obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients treated with cardiac myosin inhibitors -real world data > 3. Results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the HTN group, systolic BP was unchanged from 128.7 ± 10.6 to 128.8 ± 17.8 mmHg and diastolic BP changed from 70.7 ± 8.6 to 72.0 ± 14.5 mmHg, p = 0.794 and p = 0.224, respectively.”
§ Hypertension management in obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients treated with cardiac myosin inhibitors -real world data > 3. Results
plainn = 23- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Yes | 23 | 77.1 ± 21.3 | 27.0 ± 17.8 | <0.0001”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“LVOT gradients decreased significantly in the HTN and non-HTN groups, from 77.1 to 27.0 mmHg and from 66.3 to 19.3 mmHg, respectively (both p < 0.05).”
§ Hypertension management in obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients treated with cardiac myosin inhibitors -real world data > 5. Conclusion
plaindirectn = 34 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In patients without baseline HTN, BB and CCB use reflected management of LVOT obstruction, symptoms, or arrhythmia/rate control rather than treatment of hypertension.”
§ Hypertension management in obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients treated with cardiac myosin inhibitors -real world data > 3. Results
plaindirectn = 11- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Systolic and diastolic BP remained stable in both groups, and no patient developed incident HTN.”
- Also stated in: § 4. Discussion · plain
“BP remained stable over three months while LVOT gradients decreased substantially, irrespective of baseline HTN status.”
§ Hypertension management in obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients treated with cardiac myosin inhibitors -real world data > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 4. Discussion · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This mechanism differs fundamentally from traditional pharmacologic strategies and may explain why gradient reduction appears preserved even in the setting of afterload reduction.”
§ Hypertension management in obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients treated with cardiac myosin inhibitors -real world data > 4. Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our findings suggest that BP-directed therapies can coexist with substantial LVOT gradient reduction during mavacamten treatment in appropriately selected and closely monitored patients with HTN.”
§ Hypertension management in obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients treated with cardiac myosin inhibitors -real world data > 4. Discussion
hedgedcorrelationaln = 23- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These findings suggest that individualized BP management is feasible during CMI therapy and support prospective evaluation.”
- Also stated in: § 5. Conclusion · hedged
“These findings suggest that individualized BP management is feasible during CMI treatment and support prospective multicenter studies to define optimal BP-directed therapy in this population.”
§ Hypertension management in obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients treated with cardiac myosin inhibitors -real world data > Abstract
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Optimal management of concomitant blood pressure-directed therapy in oHCM patients treated with cardiac myosin inhibitors remains uncertain.
- Rests on an assumption: There is limited real-world evidence evaluating whether continuation of therapies primarily intended for blood pressure control affects the early hemodynamic response to cardiac myosin inhibitors.
- Also stated in: § 5. Conclusion · hedged
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, therapies primarily intended for BP control may not require routine discontinuation when initiating a CMI in patients with established HTN, although treatment should remain individualized and closely monitored.”
§ Hypertension management in obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients treated with cardiac myosin inhibitors -real world data > 4. Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The sample size did not support robust comparisons according to individual BP-directed drug class or combinations of BP-directed therapies.”
§ Hypertension management in obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients treated with cardiac myosin inhibitors -real world data > 4. Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Many blood pressure (BP)-directed therapies, particularly vasodilators, reduce preload and afterload and may exacerbate dynamic left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) obstruction, limiting their use in patients with obstructive physiology.”
§ Hypertension management in obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients treated with cardiac myosin inhibitors -real world data > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [1]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
- It may state two separate claims as one. 14
- Probably not a substantial claim. 8
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At approximately three months, BP-directed therapies among patients with baseline HTN included RAS inhibitors (n = 11), MRAs (n = 11), and diuretics (n = 4) (Table 1).”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“At three months, BP-directed therapies among patients with HTN included renin-angiotensin system inhibitors in 11, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in 11, and diuretics in 4;”
§ Hypertension management in obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients treated with cardiac myosin inhibitors -real world data > 3. Results
plainn = 23- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“BBs were used in 11/23 patients (47.8%) with HTN and 3/11 patients (27.3%) without HTN, while CCBs were used in 4/23 patients (17.4%) with HTN and 3/11 patients (27.3%) without HTN.”
§ Hypertension management in obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients treated with cardiac myosin inhibitors -real world data > 3. Results
plainn = 23- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“BBs were used in 11/23 patients (47.8%) with HTN and 3/11 patients (27.3%) without HTN, while CCBs were used in 4/23 patients (17.4%) with HTN and 3/11 patients (27.3%) without HTN.”
§ Hypertension management in obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients treated with cardiac myosin inhibitors -real world data > 3. Results
plainn = 23- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In randomized trials, mavacamten significantly improves symptoms and functional capacity and reduces LVOT gradients [2].”
§ Hypertension management in obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients treated with cardiac myosin inhibitors -real world data > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [2]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Beta-blockers (BBs) and calcium channel blockers (CCBs), which are frequently used to manage LVOT obstruction, symptoms, or arrhythmias in oHCM, should be considered separately from BP-directed therapies.”
- Also stated in: § 2. Methods · plain
“BBs and CCBs were not classified as BPdirected therapies because these agents are commonly prescribed for LVOT obstruction, symptom control, or arrhythmia/rate control in oHCM.”
§ Hypertension management in obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients treated with cardiac myosin inhibitors -real world data > 1. Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 2. Methods · plain
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, longer-term BP outcomes and clinical endpoints were not assessed.”
§ Hypertension management in obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients treated with cardiac myosin inhibitors -real world data > 4. Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These findings provide pragmatic insight into BP management in patients receiving CMIs.”
§ Hypertension management in obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients treated with cardiac myosin inhibitors -real world data > 5. Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Medication adjustments were not protocolized and reflect real-world practice, which may introduce confounding.”
§ Hypertension management in obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients treated with cardiac myosin inhibitors -real world data > 4. Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“These findings have been reinforced by long-term extension studies demonstrating sustained clinical and hemodynamic benefit [3].”
§ Hypertension management in obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients treated with cardiac myosin inhibitors -real world data > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [3]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Our results are consistent with and extend prior clinical trial data, demonstrating that mavacamten improves symptoms and reduces LVOT gradients in patients with oHCM [2].”
§ Hypertension management in obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients treated with cardiac myosin inhibitors -real world data > 4. Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [2]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Current guidelines therefore emphasize nonvasodilating negative inotropes as first-line therapy for symptomatic LVOT obstruction and recommend cautious use of vasodilating agents in patients with significant obstruction [1].”
§ Hypertension management in obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients treated with cardiac myosin inhibitors -real world data > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [1]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In patients without baseline HTN, chart review was performed to confirm the indication for BB or CCB therapy and assess for incident HTN during follow-up.”
§ Hypertension management in obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients treated with cardiac myosin inhibitors -real world data > 2. Methods
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is a single-center retrospective analysis with a modest sample size and short follow-up duration.”
§ Hypertension management in obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients treated with cardiac myosin inhibitors -real world data > 4. Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“HTN is common in oHCM and presents a therapeutic dilemma because afterload reduction may worsen dynamic obstruction [1].”
§ Hypertension management in obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients treated with cardiac myosin inhibitors -real world data > 4. Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [1]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“More recent analyses have demonstrated that mavacamten reduces LVOT gradients irrespective of baseline HTN status, supporting the concept that its therapeutic effect is independent of BP [4,5].”
§ Hypertension management in obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients treated with cardiac myosin inhibitors -real world data > 4. Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [4]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [5]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“From a mechanistic perspective, myosin inhibition directly reduces sarcomere contractility, thereby decreasing the dynamic component of LVOT obstruction [9].”
§ Hypertension management in obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy patients treated with cardiac myosin inhibitors -real world data > 4. Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [9]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper relies on this without support.
Optimal management of concomitant blood pressure-directed therapy in oHCM patients treated with cardiac myosin inhibitors remains uncertain.
“Real-world evidence is increasingly supporting these benefits; however, optimal management of concomitant BP-directed therapy remains uncertain.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There is limited real-world evidence evaluating whether continuation of therapies primarily intended for blood pressure control affects the early hemodynamic response to cardiac myosin inhibitors.
“Still, there is limited real-world evidence evaluating whether continuation of therapies primarily intended for BP control affects the early hemodynamic response to CMIs.”
Citations
Cites
Olivotto, I., Oreziak, A., Barriales-Villa, R., Abraham, T. P., Masri, A., Garcia-Pavia, P., Saberi, S., Lakdawala, N. K., Wheeler, M. T., Owens, A., et al. (2020) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(20)31792-x · Cited by 1,296
Ommen, S. R., Ho, C. Y., Asif, I. M., Balaji, S., Burke, M. A., Day, S. M., Dearani, J. A., Epps, K. C., Evanovich, L., Ferrari, V. A., et al. (2024) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/cir.0000000000001250 · Cited by 807
A small-molecule inhibitor of sarcomere contractility suppresses hypertrophic cardiomyopathy in mice
Green, E. M., Wakimoto, H., Anderson, R. L., Evanchik, M. J., Gorham, J., Harrison, B. C., Henze, M., Kawas, R. F., Oslob, J. D., Rodrı́guez, H. M., et al. (2016) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aad3456 · Cited by 708
Desai, M. Y., OWENS, A. T., Geske, J. B., Wolski, K., Naidu, S. S., Smedira, N. G., Cremer, P. C., Schaff, H. V., McErlean, E. S., Sewell, C., et al. (2022) · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2022.04.048 · Cited by 393
Masri, A., Lester, S. J., Stendahl, J. C., Hegde, S. M., Sehnert, A. J., Balaratnam, G., Shah, A., Fox, S. C., & Wang, A. (2024) · Journal of the American Heart Association · doi:10.1161/jaha.123.030607 · Cited by 40
Mavacamten for Obstructive Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy With or Without Hypertension
Wang, A., Spertus, J. A., WOJDYLA, D. M., Abraham, T. P., Nilles, E. K., OWENS, A. T., Saberi, S., Cresci, S., Sehnert, A. J., & Lakdawala, N. K. (2023) · JACC Heart Failure · doi:10.1016/j.jchf.2023.07.030 · Cited by 16
Hypertension in Patients With Obstructive Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Treated With Mavacamten
Reza, N., Mahmud, N., Austin, M. A., Duqueney, E., Patel, P. C., Boakye, E., Hornsby, N., de Feria, A., Marzolf, A. B., & OWENS, A. T. (2025) · JACC Heart Failure · doi:10.1016/j.jchf.2025.102666 · Cited by 3
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Heitner, 2022, Mavacamten treatment for obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: a phase 2 study (REDWOOD-HCM), Circ. Heart Fail., 15
- Saberi, 2023, Long-term treatment with mavacamten in patients with obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., 82, 2310
Cited by
Still being checked.
Metadata
- Authors
- Paik, K. S., Wright, Z., Gokul, K., Seals, A., Raman, D., & Sundaravel, S.
- Affiliations
- Atrium Health Wake Forest Baptist (US)
- Wake Forest University Health Sciences (US)
- Corresponding author
- Paik, Kenneth S.
- Venue
- International Journal of Cardiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2026-10
- Volume
- 461
- Pages
- 134661
- ISSN
- 0167-5273 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W7167408678
- Semantic Scholar
- 94335445a6d026799613365c92c55cdfce0f357b
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Cardiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiomyopathy and Myosin Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
- Keywords
- hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy, hypertension, cardiac myosin inhibitor, mavacamten, left ventricular outflow tract obstruction, blood pressure control, renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, diuretics, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, left ventricular outflow tract gradient
- MeSH terms
- Ventricular Outflow Obstruction, Left, Aged, Antihypertensive Agents, Benzylamines, Cardiomyopathy, Hypertrophic, Female, Humans, Hypertension, Male, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies, Uracil, Cohort Studies, Treatment Outcome, Disease Management, Cardiac Myosins
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
