Cited by 38Heart Failure Treatment and ManagementCardiovascular Function and Risk FactorsDiabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins

Optimal screening for predicting and preventing the risk of heart failure among adults with diabetes without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: a pooled cohort analysis

Open access
Patel, Kershaw V., Segar, Matthew W., Klonoff, David C., Khan, Muhammad Shahzeb, Usman, Muhammad Shariq, Lam, Carolyn S.P., Verma, Subodh, DeFilippis, Andrew P. +7 more·2024·Circulation

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The optimal approach to identify individuals with diabetes who are at a high risk for developing heart failure (HF) to inform implementation of preventive therapies is unknown, especially in those without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). METHODS: Adults with diabetes and no HF at baseline from 7 community-based cohorts were included. Participants without ASCVD who were at high risk for developing HF were identified using 1-step screening strategies: risk score (WATCH-DM [Weight, Age, Hypertension, Creatinine, HDL-C, Diabetes Control, QRS Duration, MI, and CABG] ≥12), NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide ≥125 pg/mL), hs-cTn (high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T ≥14 ng/L; hs-cTnI ≥31 ng/L), and echocardiography-based diabetic cardiomyopathy (echo-DbCM; left atrial enlargement, left ventricular hypertrophy, or diastolic dysfunction). High-risk participants were also identified using 2-step screening strategies with a second test to identify residual risk among those deemed low risk by the first test: WATCH-DM/NT-proBNP, NT-proBNP/hs-cTn, NT-proBNP/echo-DbCM. Across screening strategies, the proportion of HF events identified, 5-year number needed to treat and number needed to screen to prevent 1 HF event with an SGLT2i (sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor) among high-risk participants, and cost of screening were estimated. RESULTS: The initial study cohort included 6293 participants (48.2% women), of whom 77.7% without prevalent ASCVD were evaluated with different HF screening strategies. At 5-year follow-up, 6.2% of participants without ASCVD developed incident HF. The 5-year number needed to treat to prevent 1 HF event with an SGLT2i among participants without ASCVD was 43 (95% CI, 29–72). In the cohort without ASCVD, high-risk participants identified using 1-step screening strategies had a low 5-year number needed to treat (22 for NT-proBNP to 37 for echo-DbCM). However, a substantial proportion of HF events occurred among participants identified as low risk using 1-step screening approaches (29% for echo-DbCM to 47% for hs-cTn). Two-step screening strategies captured most HF events (75–89%) in the high-risk subgroup with a comparable 5-year number needed to treat as the 1-step screening approaches (30–32). The 5-year number needed to screen to prevent 1 HF event was similar across 2-step screening strategies (45–61). However, the number of tests and associated costs were lowest for WATCH-DM/NT-proBNP ($1061) compared with other 2-step screening strategies (NT-proBNP/hs-cTn: $2894; NT-proBNP/echo-DbCM: $16 358). CONCLUSIONS: Selective NT-proBNP testing based on the WATCH-DM score efficiently identified a high-risk primary prevention population with diabetes expected to derive marked absolute benefits from SGLT2i to prevent HF.

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 · 10.1161/circulationaha.123.067530

Cites

49 of 49 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A meta-analysis combining RCTs and nonrandomized trial data showed improved cardiovascular outcomes with a combination of SGLT2i and GLP-1-based therapy along with a higher incidence of hypoglycemia.

    “A meta-analysis combining RCTs and nonrandomized trial data showed improved cardiovascular outcomes with a combination of SGLT2i and GLP-1–based therapy along with a higher incidence of hypoglycemia,64”

    From 2026 AHA/ACC/ADA/ASN Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of Cardiovascular-Kidney-Metabolic Syndrome (2026) · cites this paper as [64]

    The Methods (Statistical analysis; page unavailable) describe pooling seven cohorts to assess heart-failure screening and estimating SGLT2i benefit using a previously published meta-analysis. Searches for GLP-1–based combination therapy, nonrandomized trials, and hypoglycemia found no passage addressing the claimed combination-treatment outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Patel, K. V., Segar, M. W., Klonoff, D. C., Khan, M. S., Usman, M. S., Lam, C. S. P., Verma, S., DeFilippis, A. P., Nasir, K., Bakker, S. J. L., Westenbrink, B. D., Dullaart, R. P. F., Butler, J., Vaduganathan, M., & Pandey, A.
Affiliations
  • Houston Methodist (US)
  • Department of Cardiology, Texas Heart Institute, Houston (M.W.S.).
  • Diabetes Research Institute, Mills-Peninsula Medical Center, San Mateo, CA (D.C.K.).
  • Duke University (US)
  • The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (US)
  • National University of Singapore (SG)
  • St. Michael's Hospital (CA)
  • Vanderbilt University Medical Center (US)
  • University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
  • University of Mississippi Medical Center (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Venue
Circulation
Published
2024-01-23
Volume
149
Issue
4
Pages
293-304
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W4388586266
Cited by
38
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 1
FWCI
7.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Circulation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
NIH NHLBI (R21HL169708)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Failure Treatment and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes, Cardiovascular Risks, and Lipoproteins
Keywords
heart failure, diabetes mellitus, heart failure prediction, screening method, NT-proBNP, high-sensitivity troponin, diabetic cardiomyopathy, SGLT2 inhibitors, number needed to treat, number needed to screen, screening costs, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, left ventricular hypertrophy, diastolic dysfunction, left atrial enlargement
MeSH terms
Adult, Cardiovascular Diseases, Diabetes Mellitus, Female, Heart Failure, Humans, Male, Peptide Fragments, Cohort Studies, Biomarkers, Natriuretic Peptide, Brain, Troponin T, Atherosclerosis

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