## 3 Results  
The following results were produced from two different datasets, as given in Tables 1 and 2. They were used to investigate the best intorrope to use for average acute HFrEF and chronic HFrEF patients. Using the F-PROMETHEE techniques previously discussed for the intorrope evaluations, the ranking list below was obtained. The net ranking results of the intoropes for acute HFrEF patients are shown in Table 3, while the ranking results of the intoropes for chronic HFrEF patients are shown in Table 4. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Rank** & **Inotrope** & \(\mathbf{\phi^{net}}\) & \(\mathbf{\phi^{+}}\) & \(\mathbf{\phi^{-}}\) \\ \hline
1 & Dopamine & 0.0632 & 0.1037 & 0.0405 \\ \hline
2 & Milrinone & 0.0565 & 0.1485 & 0.0921 \\ \hline
3 & Dobutamine & 0.0285 & 0.0983 & 0.0698 \\ \hline
4 & Noradrenaline & 0.0081 & 0.0782 & 0.0701 \\ \hline
5 & Adrenaline & \(-\)0.1563 & 0.0206 & 0.1769 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Obtained intorrope-ranking list via Fuzzy PROMETHEE for chronic HFrEF. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Criteria/Alternatives** & **Aim/Imp.** & **Weights** & **Adrenaline** (\(\mathbf{\beta}1>\mathbf{\beta}2>\mathbf{\alpha}\))** & **Noradrenaline** (\(\mathbf{\beta}\) and \(\mathbf{\alpha}\))** & **Dopamine** (\(\mathbf{\beta}\)**1-2, \(\mathbf{\alpha}\)**1, \(\mathbf{\beta}1\))** & **Dobutamine** (\(\mathbf{\beta}1>\mathbf{\beta}2>\mathbf{\alpha}\)) & **Milrinone** (\(\mathbf{\beta}\)**1-\(\mathbf{\beta}2>\mathbf{\alpha}\)) & **(PDE3 Inhibitor)** \\ \hline Myocardial Oxygen & Min & VH & H & H & M & VH & VL \\ \hline Causes & & VH & VH & H & H & M & H \\ Tachyarrhythmia & & VH & Yes & No & No & No & No \\ \hline Thrombogenic & Min & VH & Yes & No & No & No & No \\ \hline Diuresis & Max & H & VL & M & H & VL & VL \\ \hline Peripheral Organ & & & VH & VH & M & L & VL & VL \\ Damage & & VH & VH & H & M & L & M \\ \hline Side Effects & Min & VH & VH & H & M & L & M \\ \hline Effective With Beta & Max & M & No & No & No & No & Yes \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} (VH: Very High, H: High, M: Moderate, L: Low, VL: Very Low).  
\end{table} 
Table 2: _Cont._ \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Rank** & **Inotrope** & \(\mathbf{\phi^{net}}\) & \(\mathbf{\phi^{+}}\) & \(\mathbf{\phi^{-}}\) \\ \hline
1 & Dopamine & 0.0999 & 0.1296 & 0.0297 \\ \hline
2 & Noradrenaline & 0.0923 & 0.1264 & 0.0341 \\ \hline
3 & Dobutamine & 0.0103 & 0.0942 & 0.0840 \\ \hline
4 & Adrenaline & \(-\)0.0778 & 0.0588 & 0.1366 \\ \hline
5 & Milrinone & \(-\)0.1246 & 0.0703 & 0.1950 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Obtained intorrope-ranking list via Fuzzy PROMETHEE for acute HFrEF. Within the limitations of the proposed research, Figures 1 and 2 visually illustrate the ranking of each intorpe alternative. The distance between each alternative represents their relative \"score\" to each other, and this is represented by phi values that can also be found in Tables 3 and 4. The highest placed intorpe within each figure scored best, and the arrowed line flow represents the next lower rank. For example, looking at Figure 1, it can be said that there is not a big difference in the rankings of dopamine and noradrenaline for the acute HFrEF patients, as there only have several slightly better graded property values that account for the first rank placement of dopamine over noradrenaline. The divergence of two arrowed lines from dobutamine in Figure 1 and the convergence of two arrowed lines towards adrenaline in Figure 2 represent a distinct type of information that is also useful to visualize and further investigate as necessary.