Heart failure & cardiomyopathiesRandomised controlled trial
OUTSMART heart failure (HF)
- Randomised controlled trial
Authors' conclusion
In patients with nonischemic HF, routine CMR does not yield more specific HF causes on clinical assessment. Patients with specific HF causes from imaging had worse outcomes, whereas HF causes defined clinically did not.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with nonischemic HF
- Participants
- 500 patients
- Comparison
- Routine vs selective cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR)
- Primary endpoint
- Specific HF causes, classified by the treating physician
- Follow-up
- 3 months
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Specific HF causes on clinical assessment
P = 0.22
Further findings
Specific HF causes at image interpretation
P = 0.34
| Outcome | P value |
|---|---|
| Clinical events, specific vs nonspecific HF causes (imaging classification) | P = 0.02 |
| Clinical events, specific vs nonspecific HF causes (clinical assessment) | P = 0.49 |
- Specific HF causes at image interpretation: 24% of Selective CMR underwent nonprotocol CMR
- Clinical events, specific vs nonspecific HF causes (imaging classification): Specific HF causes 19%
- Clinical events, specific vs nonspecific HF causes (imaging classification): Nonspecific HF causes 12%
- Clinical events, specific vs nonspecific HF causes (clinical assessment): Specific HF causes 15%
- Clinical events, specific vs nonspecific HF causes (clinical assessment): Nonspecific HF causes 14%
Original publication
OUTSMART HF. Circulation. Published 8 January 2020. doi:10.1161/circulationaha.119.043964
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it