MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 3148: Atrial Fibrillation Is Associated With Increased Risk Of Fatal And Non-fatal Cardiovascular Events In Patients With Heart Failure And Preserved Ejection Fraction - Findings From The Irbesartan In Heart Failure With Preserved Systolic Function Trial (I-PRESERVE)

2007· article· en· W1531911194 on OpenAlexaff
Michael R. Zile, Michel Komajda, Robert S. McKelvie, John J.V. McMurray, Mark Donovan, Agata Ptaszynska, Peter E. Carson, Barry M. Massie

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureIrbesartanInternal medicineCardiologyAtrial fibrillationEjection fractionMyocardial infarctionStroke (engine)PlaceboRandomizationRandomized controlled trialBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF, documented by ECG) is present in 15% of patients with heart failure and a reduced LV ejection fraction (HF-REF) and is an independent predictor of cardiovascular (CV) events. The prevalence of AF in patients with HF and preserved EF (HF-PEF) and whether AF is an independent predictor of CV outcomes in HF-PEF have not been defined. Methods: The Irbesartan in Heart Failure with Preserved Systolic Function Trial (I-PRESERVE) randomized 4128 patients with an EF ≥ 45% to receive Irbesartan or placebo. The prevalence of AF was established by ECG at randomization. The “ primary” outcome (475 events/3796 patients) of all-cause mortality or CV hospitalization (myocardial infarction, stroke, worsening heart failure, atrial or ventricular arrhythmia, unstable angina) and a “ secondary” outcome (294 events/3796 patients) of HF mortality and HF hospitalizations were compared over one year of follow-up between patients with and without AF. The independent predictive role of AF was examined in a multivariable model (including symptoms, clinical history, CV examination, biochemistry, hematology). Results: In I-PRESERVE, 16% of patients had AF by ECG at randomization. Patients with AF, compared to patients without AF, were older (74 ± 0.3 vs 71 ± 0.1 yrs, mean ± SEM), less often female (54% vs 62%), had lower EF (58 ± 0.4% vs 60 ± 0.2%), lower eGFR (68 ± 0.8 vs 73 ± 0.4), higher incidence of previous HF hospitalization (61% vs 41%), less frequent history of hypertension and MI (84 & 17% vs 89 & 25%), lower systolic BP (134 ± 0.6 vs 137 ± 0.3 mmHg), higher heart rate (76 ± 0.5 vs 71 ± 0.2 BPM), all p < 0.05. The primary and secondary outcomes occurred in 19 & 15% of patients with AF and 12 & 6% of patients without AF at 1 year. In a multivariate analysis AF remained a significant predictor of increased risk of the primary (Hazard Ratio, HR 1.33 [95% CI 1.07, 1.65]) and secondary (HR 1.81 [95% CI 1.40, 2.33]) outcomes. Conclusions: At randomization to I-PRESERVE, the prevalence of AF by ECG in HF-PEF patients was similar to patients with HF-REF in previous studies. HF-PEF patients with AF had a significantly worse outcome than those without AF and this increased risk of fatal and non-fatal CV events was independent of other factors associated with a worse prognosis.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→