Dabigatran Compared with Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Symptomatic Heart Failure: A Subgroup Analysis of the RE-LY Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: We evaluated the effects of dabigatran compared with warfarin in the subgroup of patients with previous symptomatic heart failure (HF) in the RE-LY trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: RE-LY compared two fixed and blinded doses of dabigatran (110 and 150 mg twice daily) with open-label warfarin in 18 113 patients with AF at increased risk for stroke. Among 4904 patients with HF, annual rates of stroke or systemic embolism (SE) were 1.92% for patients on warfarin compared with 1.90% for dabigatran 110 mg [hazard ratio (HR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.69-1.42] and 1.44% for dabigatran 150 mg (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.51-1.10). Annual rates of major bleeding were 3.90% for the group on warfarin, compared with 3.26% for dabigatran 110 mg (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.64-1.09) and 3.10% for dabigatran 150 mg (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.60-1.03). Rates of intracranial bleeding were significantly lower for both dabigatran dosages compared with warfarin in patients with HF (dabigatran 110 mg vs. warfarin, HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.14-0.80; dabigatran 150 mg vs. warfarin, HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.17-0.89). The relative effects of dabigatran vs. warfarin on the occurrence of stroke or SE and major bleeding were consistent among those with and without HF and those with low (≤40%) or preserved (>40%) LVEF (P interaction not significant). CONCLUSIONS: The overall benefits of dabigatran for stroke/SE prevention, and major and intracranial bleeding, relative to warfarin in the RE-LY trial were consistent in patients with and without HF.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".