Research: Abstracts and GPT Tasks - yina/2025-catalyzing-health-promptathon GitHub Wiki

Thank you for Time Requarth

Tasks

Task	Goal	Prompt
Summarization	Summarize the main findings of the reviews	Below are six abstracts of heart failure papers in Pubmed.  Summarize the four main findings in one line each:
Extraction	Number of participants	How many participants in total were included in these reviews?
Classification	Classify the type of review	What types of reviews were performed in each study?
Transformation	Create a table of the results	Format the results of each paper in a table with the paper title
Generation	Create a follow up research plan based on these papers	write some key unaddressed questions or gaps in the literature as defined by these papers

Abstracts

Abstracts of Heart Failure Review Papers:  These six abstracts are from Pubmed search results for recent review papers on the topic of heart failure 
 
 
Prevalence, incidence and survival of heart failure: a systematic review. (35042750) [Heart | 08/11/2022] 
Studies of the epidemiology of heart failure in the general population can inform assessments of disease burden, research, public health policy and health system care delivery. We performed a systematic review of prevalence, incidence and survival for all available population-representative studies to inform the Global Burden of Disease 2020. We examined population-based studies published between 1990 and 2020 using structured review methods and database search strings. Studies were sought in which heart failure was defined by clinical diagnosis using structured criteria such as the Framingham or European Society of Cardiology criteria, with studies using alternate case definitions identified for comparison. Study results were extracted with descriptive characteristics including age range, location and case definition. Search strings identified 42 360 studies over a 30-year period, of which 790 were selected for full-text review and 125 met criteria for inclusion. 45 sources reported estimates of prevalence, 41 of incidence and 58 of mortality. Prevalence ranged from 0.2%, in a Hong Kong study of hospitalised heart failure patients in 1997, to 17.7%, in a US study of Medicare beneficiaries aged 65+ from 2002 to 2013. Collapsed estimates of incidence ranged from 0.1%, in the EPidémiologie de l'Insuffisance Cardiaque Avancée en Lorraine (EPICAL) study of acute heart failure in France among those aged 20-80 years in 1994, to 4.3%, in a US study of Medicare beneficiaries 65+ from 1994 to 2003. One-year heart failure case fatality ranged from 4% to 45% with an average of 33% overall and 24% for studies across all adult ages. Diagnostic criteria, case ascertainment strategy and demographic breakdown varied widely between studies. Prevalence, incidence and survival for heart failure varied widely across countries and studies, reflecting a range of study design. Heart failure remains a high prevalence disease among older adults with a high risk of death at 1 year. 
 
 
Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for adults with heart failure. (30695817) [Cochrane Database Syst Rev | 01/29/2019] 
BACKGROUND: Chronic heart failure (HF) is a growing global health challenge. People with HF experience substantial burden that includes low exercise tolerance, poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL), increased risk of mortality and hospital admission, and high healthcare costs. The previous (2014) Cochrane systematic review reported that exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) compared to no exercise control shows improvement in HRQoL and hospital admission among people with HF, as well as possible reduction in mortality over the longer term, and that these reductions appear to be consistent across patient and programme characteristics. Limitations noted by the authors of this previous Cochrane Review include the following: (1) most trials were undertaken in patients with HF with reduced (< 45%) ejection fraction (HFrEF), and women, older people, and those with preserved (≥ 45%) ejection fraction HF (HFpEF) were under-represented; and (2) most trials were undertaken in the hospital/centre-based setting. 
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality, hospital admission, and health-related quality of life of people with heart failure. 
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and three other databases on 29 January 2018. We also checked the bibliographies of systematic reviews and two trial registers. 
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared exercise-based CR interventions with six months' or longer follow-up versus a no exercise control that could include usual medical care. The study population comprised adults (> 18 years) with evidence of HF - either HFrEF or HFpEF. 
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened all identified references and rejected those that were clearly ineligible for inclusion in the review. We obtained full papers of potentially relevant trials. Two review authors independently extracted data from the included trials, assessed their risk of bias, and performed GRADE analyses. 
MAIN RESULTS: We included 44 trials (5783 participants with HF) with a median of six months' follow-up. For this latest update, we identified 11 new trials (N = 1040), in addition to the previously identified 33 trials. Although the evidence base includes predominantly patients with HFrEF with New York Heart Association classes II and III receiving centre-based exercise-based CR programmes, a growing body of studies include patients with HFpEF and are undertaken in a home-based setting. All included studies included a no formal exercise training intervention comparator. However, a wide range of comparators were seen across studies that included active intervention (i.e. education, psychological intervention) or usual medical care alone. The overall risk of bias of included trials was low or unclear, and we downgraded results using the GRADE tool for all but one outcome.Cardiac rehabilitation may make little or no difference in all-cause mortality over the short term (≤ one year of follow-up) (27 trials, 28 comparisons (2596 participants): intervention 67/1302 (5.1%) vs control 75/1294 (5.8%); risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 1.21; low-quality GRADE evidence) but may improve all-cause mortality in the long term (> 12 months follow up) (6 trials/comparisons (2845 participants): intervention 244/1418 (17.2%) vs control 280/1427 (19.6%) events): RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.02; high-quality evidence). Researchers provided no data on deaths due to HF. CR probably reduces overall hospital admissions in the short term (up to one year of follow-up) (21 trials, 21 comparisons (2182 participants): (intervention 180/1093 (16.5%) vs control 258/1089 (23.7%); RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.83; moderate-quality evidence, number needed to treat: 14) and may reduce HF-specific hospitalisation (14 trials, 15 comparisons (1114 participants): (intervention 40/562 (7.1%) vs control 61/552 (11.1%) RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.84; low-quality evidence, number needed to treat: 25). After CR, a clinically important improvement in short-term disease-specific health-related quality of life may be evident (Minnesota Living With Heart Failure questionnaire - 17 trials, 18 comparisons (1995 participants): mean difference (MD) -7.11 points, 95% CI -10.49 to -3.73; low-quality evidence). Pooling across all studies, regardless of the HRQoL measure used, shows there may be clinically important improvement with exercise (26 trials, 29 comparisons (3833 participants); standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.60, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.39; I² = 87%; Chi² = 215.03; low-quality evidence). ExCR effects appeared to be consistent different models of ExCR delivery: centre vs. home-based, exercise dose, exercise only vs. comprehensive programmes, and aerobic training alone vs aerobic plus resistance programmes. 
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This updated Cochrane Review provides additional randomised evidence (11 trials) to support the conclusions of the previous version (2014) of this Cochane Review. Compared to no exercise control, CR appears to have no impact on mortality in the short term (< 12 months' follow-up). Low- to moderate-quality evidence shows that CR probably reduces the risk of all-cause hospital admissions and may reduce HF-specific hospital admissions in the short term (up to 12 months). CR may confer a clinically important improvement in health-related quality of life, although we remain uncertain about this because the evidence is of low quality. Future ExCR trials need to continue to consider the recruitment of traditionally less represented HF patient groups including older, female, and HFpEF patients, and alternative CR delivery settings including home- and using technology-based programmes. 
 
 
The Effect of Advance Care Planning on Heart Failure: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. (31720968) [J Gen Intern Med | 03/01/2020] 
BACKGROUND: Advance care planning is widely advocated to improve outcomes in end-of-life care for patients suffering from heart failure. But until now, there has been no systematic evaluation of the impact of advance care planning (ACP) on clinical outcomes. Our aim was to determine the effect of ACP in heart failure through a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). 
METHODS: We searched CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, ERIC, Ovid MEDLINE, Science Citation Index and PsycINFO (inception to July 2018). We selected RCTs including adult patients with heart failure treated in a hospital, hospice or community setting. Three reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias (Cochrane risk of bias tool) and evaluated the quality of evidence (GRADE tool) and analysed interventions according to the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR). We calculated standardized mean differences (SMD) in random effects models for pooled effects using the generic inverse variance method. 
RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs including 2924 participants met all of the inclusion criteria. There was a moderate effect in favour of ACP for quality of life (SMD, 0.38; 95% CI [0.09 to 0.68]), patients' satisfaction with end-of-life care (SMD, 0.39; 95% CI [0.14 to 0.64]) and the quality of end-of-life communication (SMD, 0.29; 95% CI [0.17 to 0.42]) for patients suffering from heart failure. ACP seemed most effective if it was introduced at significant milestones in a patient's disease trajectory, included family members, involved follow-up appointments and considered ethnic preferences. Several sensitivity analyses confirmed the statistically significant direction of effect. Heterogeneity was mainly due to different study settings, length of follow-up periods and compositions of ACP. 
CONCLUSIONS: ACP improved quality of life, patient satisfaction with end-of-life care and the quality of end-of-life communication for patients suffering from heart failure and could be most effective when the right timing, follow-up and involvement of important others was considered. 
 
 
Disease management interventions for heart failure. (30620776) [Cochrane Database Syst Rev | 01/08/2019] 
BACKGROUND: Despite advances in treatment, the increasing and ageing population makes heart failure an important cause of morbidity and death worldwide. It is associated with high healthcare costs, partly driven by frequent hospital readmissions. Disease management interventions may help to manage people with heart failure in a more proactive, preventative way than drug therapy alone. This is the second update of a review published in 2005 and updated in 2012. 
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of different disease management interventions for heart failure (which are not purely educational in focus), with usual care, in terms of death, hospital readmissions, quality of life and cost-related outcomes. 
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL for this review update on 9 January 2018 and two clinical trials registries on 4 July 2018. We applied no language restrictions. 
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least six months' follow-up, comparing disease management interventions to usual care for adults who had been admitted to hospital at least once with a diagnosis of heart failure. There were three main types of intervention: case management; clinic-based interventions; multidisciplinary interventions. 
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Outcomes of interest were mortality due to heart failure, mortality due to any cause, hospital readmission for heart failure, hospital readmission for any cause, adverse effects, quality of life, costs and cost-effectiveness. 
MAIN RESULTS: We found 22 new RCTs, so now include 47 RCTs (10,869 participants). Twenty-eight were case management interventions, seven were clinic-based models, nine were multidisciplinary interventions, and three could not be categorised as any of these. The included studies were predominantly in an older population, with most studies reporting a mean age of between 67 and 80 years. Seven RCTs were in upper-middle-income countries, the rest were in high-income countries.Only two multidisciplinary-intervention RCTs reported mortality due to heart failure. Pooled analysis gave a risk ratio (RR) of 0.46 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 0.95), but the very low-quality evidence means we are uncertain of the effect on mortality due to heart failure. Based on this limited evidence, the number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) is 12 (95% CI 9 to 126).Twenty-six case management RCTs reported all-cause mortality, with low-quality evidence indicating that these may reduce all-cause mortality (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.90; NNTB 25, 95% CI 17 to 54). We pooled all seven clinic-based studies, with low-quality evidence suggesting they may make little to no difference to all-cause mortality. Pooled analysis of eight multidisciplinary studies gave moderate-quality evidence that these probably reduce all-cause mortality (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.83; NNTB 17, 95% CI 12 to 32).We pooled data on heart failure readmissions from 12 case management studies. Moderate-quality evidence suggests that they probably reduce heart failure readmissions (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.78; NNTB 8, 95% CI 6 to 13). We were able to pool only two clinic-based studies, and the moderate-quality evidence suggested that there is probably little or no difference in heart failure readmissions between clinic-based interventions and usual care (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.18). Pooled analysis of five multidisciplinary interventions gave low-quality evidence that these may reduce the risk of heart failure readmissions (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.92; NNTB 11, 95% CI 7 to 44).Meta-analysis of 14 RCTs gave moderate-quality evidence that case management probably slightly reduces all-cause readmissions (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.01); a decrease from 491 to 451 in 1000 people (95% CI 407 to 495). Pooling four clinic-based RCTs gave low-quality and somewhat heterogeneous evidence that these may result in little or no difference in all-cause readmissions (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.12). Low-quality evidence from five RCTs indicated that multidisciplinary interventions may slightly reduce all-cause readmissions (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.01); a decrease from 450 to 383 in 1000 people (95% CI 320 to 455).Neither case management nor clinic-based intervention RCTs reported adverse effects. Two multidisciplinary interventions reported that no adverse events occurred. GRADE assessment of moderate quality suggested that there may be little or no difference in adverse effects between multidisciplinary interventions and usual care.Quality of life was generally poorly reported, with high attrition. Low-quality evidence means we are uncertain about the effect of case management and multidisciplinary interventions on quality of life. Four clinic-based studies reported quality of life but we could not pool them due to differences in reporting. Low-quality evidence indicates that clinic-based interventions may result in little or no difference in quality of life.Four case management programmes had cost-effectiveness analyses, and seven reported cost data. Low-quality evidence indicates that these may reduce costs and may be cost-effective. Two clinic-based studies reported cost savings. Low-quality evidence indicates that clinic-based interventions may reduce costs slightly. Low-quality data from one multidisciplinary intervention suggested this may be cost-effective from a societal perspective but less so from a health-services perspective. 
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found limited evidence for the effect of disease management programmes on mortality due to heart failure, with few studies reporting this outcome. Case management may reduce all-cause mortality, and multidisciplinary interventions probably also reduce all-cause mortality, but clinic-based interventions had little or no effect on all-cause mortality. Readmissions due to heart failure or any cause were probably reduced by case-management interventions. Clinic-based interventions probably make little or no difference to heart failure readmissions and may result in little or no difference in readmissions for any cause. Multidisciplinary interventions may reduce the risk of readmission for heart failure or for any cause. There was a lack of evidence for adverse effects, and conclusions on quality of life remain uncertain due to poor-quality data. Variations in study location and time of occurrence hamper attempts to review costs and cost-effectiveness.The potential to improve quality of life is an important consideration but remains poorly reported. Improved reporting in future trials would strengthen the evidence for this patient-relevant outcome. 
 
Beta-blockers and inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin aldosterone system for chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. (34022072) [Cochrane Database Syst Rev | 05/22/2021] 
BACKGROUND: Beta-blockers and inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system improve survival and reduce morbidity in people with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF); a review of the evidence is required to determine whether these treatments are beneficial for people with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). 
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists in people with HFpEF. 
SEARCH METHODS: We updated searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and one clinical trial register on 14 May 2020 to identify eligible studies, with no language or date restrictions. We checked references from trial reports and review articles for additional studies.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials with a parallel group design, enrolling adults with HFpEF, defined by LVEF greater than 40%. 
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. 
MAIN RESULTS: We included 41 randomised controlled trials (231 reports), totalling 23,492 participants across all comparisons. The risk of bias was frequently unclear and only five studies had a low risk of bias in all domains. Beta-blockers (BBs) We included 10 studies (3087 participants) investigating BBs. Five studies used a placebo comparator and in five the comparator was usual care. The mean age of participants ranged from 30 years to 81 years. A possible reduction in cardiovascular mortality was observed (risk ratio (RR) 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.99; number needed to treat for an additional benefit (NNTB) 25; 1046 participants; three studies), however, the certainty of evidence was low. There may be little to no effect on all-cause mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.00; 1105 participants; four studies; low-certainty evidence). The effects on heart failure hospitalisation, hyperkalaemia, and quality of life remain uncertain. Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) We included 13 studies (4459 participants) investigating MRA. Eight studies used a placebo comparator and in five the comparator was usual care. The mean age of participants ranged from 54.5 to 80 years. Pooled analysis indicated that MRA treatment probably reduces heart failure hospitalisation (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.98; NNTB = 41; 3714 participants; three studies; moderate-certainty evidence). However, MRA treatment probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.06; 4207 participants; five studies; moderate-certainty evidence) and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.11; 4070 participants; three studies; moderate-certainty evidence). MRA treatment may have little or no effect on quality of life measures (mean difference (MD) 0.84, 95% CI -2.30 to 3.98; 511 participants; three studies; low-certainty evidence). MRA treatment was associated with a higher risk of hyperkalaemia (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.77 to 2.51; number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) = 11; 4291 participants; six studies; high-certainty evidence). Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) We included eight studies (2061 participants) investigating ACEIs. Three studies used a placebo comparator and in five the comparator was usual care. The mean age of participants ranged from 70 to 82 years. Pooled analyses with moderate-certainty evidence suggest that ACEI treatment likely has little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.42; 945 participants; two studies), all-cause mortality (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.45; 1187 participants; five studies) and heart failure hospitalisation (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.15; 1019 participants; three studies), and may result in little or no effect on the quality of life (MD -0.09, 95% CI -3.66 to 3.48; 154 participants; two studies; low-certainty evidence). The effects on hyperkalaemia remain uncertain. Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) Eight studies (8755 participants) investigating ARBs were included. Five studies used a placebo comparator and in three the comparator was usual care. The mean age of participants ranged from 61 to 75 years. Pooled analyses with high certainty of evidence suggest that ARB treatment has little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.02, 95% 0.90 to 1.14; 7254 participants; three studies), all-cause mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.11; 7964 participants; four studies), heart failure hospitalisation (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.02; 7254 participants; three studies), and quality of life (MD 0.41, 95% CI -0.86 to 1.67; 3117 participants; three studies). ARB was associated with a higher risk of hyperkalaemia (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.07 to 3.33; 7148 participants; two studies; high-certainty evidence). Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs) Three studies (7702 participants) investigating ARNIs were included. Two studies used ARBs as the comparator and one used standardised medical therapy, based on participants' established treatments at enrolment. The mean age of participants ranged from 71 to 73 years. Results suggest that ARNIs may have little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.15; 4796 participants; one study; moderate-certainty evidence), all-cause mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.11; 7663 participants; three studies; high-certainty evidence), or quality of life (high-certainty evidence). However, ARNI treatment may result in a slight reduction in heart failure hospitalisation, compared to usual care (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.00; 7362 participants; two studies; moderate-certainty evidence). ARNI treatment was associated with a reduced risk of hyperkalaemia compared with valsartan (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.01; 5054 participants; two studies; moderate-certainty evidence). 
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that MRA and ARNI treatment in HFpEF probably reduces heart failure hospitalisation but probably has little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality and quality of life. BB treatment may reduce the risk of cardiovascular mortality, however, further trials are needed. The current evidence for BBs, ACEIs, and ARBs is limited and does not support their use in HFpEF in the absence of an alternative indication. Although MRAs and ARNIs are probably effective at reducing the risk of heart failure hospitalisation, the treatment effect sizes are modest. There is a need for improved approaches to patient stratification to identify the subgroup of patients who are most likely to benefit from MRAs and ARNIs, as well as for an improved understanding of disease biology, and for new therapeutic approaches. 
 
 
Ultrafiltration for acute heart failure. (35061249) [Cochrane Database Syst Rev | 01/21/2022] 
BACKGROUND: Pharmacotherapies such as loop diuretics are the cornerstone treatment for acute heart failure (AHF), but resistance and poor response can occur. Ultrafiltration (UF) is an alternative therapy to reduce congestion, however its benefits, efficacy and safety are unclear. 
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of UF compared to diuretic therapy on clinical outcomes such as mortality and rehospitalisation rates. 
SEARCH METHODS: We undertook a systematic search in June 2021 of the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science CPCI-S and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched the WHO ICTRP platform in October 2020. 
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared UF to diuretics in adults with AHF. 
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for any further information, and language interpreters to translate texts. We assessed risk of bias in included studies using Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) tool and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. 
MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 trials involving 1190 people. We included people who had clinical signs of acute hypervolaemia. We excluded critically unwell people such as those with ischaemia or haemodynamic instability. Mean age ranged from 57.5 to 75 years, and the setting was a mix of single and multi-centre. Two trials researched UF as a complimentary therapy to diuretics, while the remaining trials withheld diuretic use during UF. There was high risk of bias in some studies, particularly with deviations from the intended protocols from high cross-overs as well as missing outcome data for long-term follow-up.  We are uncertain about the effect of UF on all-cause mortality at 30 days or less (risk ratio (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 2.85; 3 studies, 286 participants; very low-certainty evidence). UF may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality at the longest available follow-up (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.36; 9 studies, 987 participants; low-certainty evidence). UF may reduce all-cause rehospitalisation at 30 days or less (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.09; 3 studies, 337 participants; low-certainty evidence). UF may slightly reduce all-cause rehospitalisation at longest available follow-up (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.05; 6 studies, 612 participants; low-certainty evidence). UF may reduce heart failure-related rehospitalisation at 30 days or less (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.04; 2 studies, 395 participants; low-certainty evidence). UF probably reduces heart failure-related rehospitalisation at longest available follow-up, with a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial effect (NNTB) of 10 (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.90; 4 studies, 636 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).  No studies measured need for mechanical ventilation.  UF may have little or no effect on serum creatinine change at 30 days since discharge (mean difference (MD) 14%, 95% CI -12% to 40%; 1 study, 221 participants; low-certainty evidence). UF may increase the risk of new initiation of renal replacement therapy at longest available follow-up (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.42 to 4.75; 4 studies, 332 participants; low-certainty evidence).  There is an uncertain effect of UF on the risk of complications from central line insertion in hospital (RR 4.16, 95% CI 1.30 to 13.30; 6 studies, 779 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review summarises the latest evidence on UF in AHF. Moderate-certainty evidence shows UF probably reduces heart failure-related rehospitalisation in the long term, with an NNTB of 10. UF may reduce all-cause rehospitalisation at 30 days or less and at longest available follow-up. The effect of UF on all-cause mortality at 30 days or less is unclear, and it may have little effect on all-cause mortality in the long-term.  While UF may have little or no effect on serum creatinine change at 30 days, it may increase the risk of new initiation of renal replacement therapy in the long term. The effect on complications from central line insertion is unclear.  There is insufficient evidence to determine the true impact of UF on AHF. Future research should evaluate UF as an adjunct therapy, focusing on outcomes such as heart failure-related rehospitalisation, cardiac mortality and renal outcomes at medium- to long-term follow-up.