Relationship between Heart Rate and Mortality and Morbidity in the Irbesartan Patients with Heart Failure and Preserved Systolic Function Trial (I-Preserve)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Higher heart rate is associated with poorer outcomes in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HF-REF). Less is known about the association between heart rate and outcomes in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction (HF-PEF). Therefore, we examined the relationship between heart rate and outcomes in the irbesartan in patients with heart failure and preserved systolic function trial (I-Preserve) in patients with an ejection fraction >45% aged >60 years. METHODS AND RESULTS: Heart rate was analysed as both a categorical (tertiles) and continuous variable. Patients in sinus rhythm (n = 3271) and atrial fibrillation (n = 696) were analysed separately. The outcomes examined were the primary endpoint of the trial (all-cause death or cardiovascular hospitalization), the composite of cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization (and its components) and all-cause death alone. Higher heart rate was associated with a significantly higher risk of all outcomes studied for patients in sinus rhythm, even after adjustment for other prognostic variables, including N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide. Each standard deviation (12.4 bpm) increase in heart rate was associated with an increase in risk of 13% for cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization (P = 0.002). No relationship between heart rate and outcomes was observed for patients in atrial fibrillation. Beta-blocker treatment did not reduce the heart rate-risk relationship. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction, heart rate is in sinus rhythm an independent predictor of adverse clinical outcomes and might be a therapeutic target in this syndrome. Clinical Trial Registration - URL http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT 0095238.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".