Acute Heart Failure in Elderly Patients: Worse Outcomes and Differential Utility of Standard Prognostic Variables. Insights from the PROTECT Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Previous heart failure (HF) trials suggested that age influences patient characteristics and outcome; however, under-representation of elderly patients has limited characterization of this cohort. Whether standard prognostic variables have differential utility in various age groups is unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS: The PROTECT trial investigated 2033 patients (median age 72 years) with acute HF randomized to rolofylline or placebo. Patients were divided into five groups based on the quintiles of age: ≤59, 60-68, 69-74, 75-79, and ≥80 years. Baseline characteristics, medications, and outcomes (30-day death or cardiovascular/renal hospitalization, and death at 30 and 180 days) were explored. The prognostic utility of baseline characteristics for outcomes was investigated in the different groups and in those aged <80 years vs. ≥80 years. With increasing age, patients were more likely to be women with hypertension, AF, and higher EF. Increased age was associated with increased risk of 30- and 180-day outcomes, which persisted after multivariable adjustment (hazard ratio for 180-day death = 1.17; 95% confidence interval 1.11-1.24 for each 5-year increase). The prognostic utility of baseline characteristics such as previous HF hospitalization and serum sodium, systolic blood pressure, and NYHA class was attenuated in the elderly for the endpoint of 180-day mortality. An increase in albumin was associated with a greater reduction in risk in patients aged ≥80 years vs. <80 years. CONCLUSIONS: In a large trial of acute HF, there were differences in baseline characteristics and outcomes amongst patients of different ages. Standard prognostic variables exhibit different utility in elderly patients.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".