An Evaluation of the Prevalence and Severity of Pain and Other Symptoms in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Heart failure is characterized by recurrent decompensations and persistent symptoms that decrease quality of life. Shortness of breath and fatigue are commonly identified symptoms but there is limited data on pain in heart failure patients. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) was used to identify the prevalence and severity of pain and other symptoms experienced by patients with acute decompensated heart failure. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study that evaluated patients with a history of chronic heart failure admitted to the hospital with acute decompensated heart failure. A standardized questionnaire (ESAS) was administered to patients within 24 hours of hospital admission. Exclusion criteria included patients <18 years of age, admission for a noncardiac reason, active malignancy, history of chronic pain, outpatient chronic pain medication use, and those actively followed by the palliative care service. RESULTS: One hundred patients, 67 males, with a mean age of 58 ± 17 years were recruited. The mean ejection fraction (EF) was 37%± 18%. Sixty patients (60%) reported pain of any degree. Patients with lower EF (≤ 40%, n=61) reported significantly higher pain scores (4.1 ± 3.6) compared to patients with higher EF (>40%, n=36, 2.7 ± 3.4, p<0.05). Tiredness, shortness of breath, and decreased well-being were the most severe symptoms with mean scores of 6.3 ± 2.8, 6.1 ± 3.1, and 5.7 ± 2.6, respectively. CONCLUSION: Pain is a common, underrecognized symptom in patients with chronic but acute decompensated heart failure. Decreased well-being, shortness of breath, and tiredness are the most common and severe symptoms in patients with chronic heart failure, regardless of ejection fraction.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".