Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 806

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

EUR Observational Research Programme: regional differences and 1-year follow-up results of the Heart Failure Pilot Survey (ESC-HF Pilot)

Open access
Maggioni, Aldo P., Dahlström, Ulf, Filippatos, Gerasimos, Chioncel, Ovidiu, Leiro, Marisa Crespo, Drozdz, Jaroslaw, Fruhwald, Friedrich, Gullestad, Lars, Logeart, Damien, Fabbri, Gianna, Urso, Renato, Metra, Marco, Parissis, John, Persson, Hans, Ponikowski, Piotr, Rauchhaus, Mathias, Voors, Adriaan A., Nielsen, Olav Wendelboe, Zannad, Faiez, Tavazzi, Luigi·2013·European Journal of Heart Failure

Abstract

Aims: The ESC-HF Pilot survey was aimed to describe clinical epidemiology and 1-year outcomes of outpatients and inpatients with heart failure (HF). The pilot phase was also specifically aimed at validating structure, performance, and quality of the data set for continuing the survey into a permanent Registry. Methods: The ESC-HF Pilot study is a prospective, multicentre, observational survey conducted in 136 Cardiology Centres in 12 European countries selected to represent the different health systems across Europe. All outpatients with HF and patients admitted for acute HF on 1 day per week for eight consecutive months were included. From October 2009 to May 2010, 5118 patients were included: 1892 (37%) admitted for acute HF and 3226 (63%) patients with chronic HF. The all-cause mortality rate at 1 year was 17.4% in acute HF and 7.2% in chronic stable HF. One-year hospitalization rates were 43.9% and 31.9%, respectively, in hospitalized acute and chronic HF patients. Major regional differences in 1-year mortality were observed that could be explained by differences in characteristics and treatment of the patients. Conclusion: The ESC-HF Pilot survey confirmed that acute HF is still associated with a very poor medium-term prognosis, while the widespread adoption of evidence-based treatments in patients with chronic HF seems to have improved their outcome profile. Differences across countries may be due to different local medical practice as well to differences in healthcare systems. This pilot study also offered the opportunity to refine the organizational structure for a long-term extended European network.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/eurjhf/hft050

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 806

Metadata

Authors
Maggioni, A. P., Dahlström, U., Filippatos, G., Chioncel, O., Leiro, M. C., Drozdz, J., Fruhwald, F., Gullestad, L., Logeart, D., Fabbri, G., Urso, R., Metra, M., Parissis, J., Persson, H., Ponikowski, P., Rauchhaus, M., Voors, A. A., Nielsen, O. W., Zannad, F., & Tavazzi, L.
Venue
European Journal of Heart Failure
Published
2013-07-01
Volume
15
Issue
7
Pages
808-817
ISSN
  • 1388-9842 (ISSN-L)
  • 1879-0844
OpenAlex
W2081005181
Cited by
806
References
2
FWCI
26.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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.

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: EUR Observational Research Programme: regional differences and 1-year follow-up results of the Heart Failure Pilot Survey (ESC-HF Pilot). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/eurjhf/hft050
The paper
Maggioni, A. P., Dahlström, U., Filippatos, G., Chioncel, O., Leiro, M. C., Drozdz, J., Fruhwald, F., Gullestad, L., Logeart, D., Fabbri, G., Urso, R., Metra, M., Parissis, J., Persson, H., Ponikowski, P., Rauchhaus, M., Voors, A. A., Nielsen, O. W., Zannad, F., & Tavazzi, L. (2013). EUR Observational Research Programme: regional differences and 1-year follow-up results of the Heart Failure Pilot Survey (ESC-HF Pilot). European Journal of Heart Failure. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjhf/hft050

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.