Association between resting heart rate, chronotropic index, and long-term outcomes in patients with heart failure receiving β-blocker therapy: data from the HF-ACTION trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The aim of this study was to assess the association between resting heart rate (HR), chronotropic index (CI), and clinical outcomes in optimally treated chronic heart failure (HF) patients on β-blocker therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a sub-study in 1118 patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction (EF < 35%) included in the HF-ACTION trial. Patients in sinus rhythm who received a β-blocker and who performed with maximal effort on the exercise test were included. Chronotropic index was calculated as an index of HR reserve achieved, by using the equation (220-age) for estimating maximum HR. A sensitivity analysis using an equation developed for HF patients on β-blockers was also performed. Cox proportional hazards models were fit to assess the association between CI and clinical outcomes. Median (25th, 75th percentiles) follow-up was 32 (21, 44) months. In a multivariable model including resting HR and CI as continuous variables, neither was associated with the primary outcome of all-cause mortality or hospitalization. However, each 0.1 unit decrease in CI <0.6 was associated with 17% increased risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 1.17, 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.36; P = 0.036), and 13% increased risk of cardiovascular mortality or HF hospitalization (hazard ratio 1.13, 1.02-1.26; P = 0.025). Overall, 666 of 1118 (60%) patients had a CI <0.6. Chronotropic index did not retain statistical significance when dichotomized at a value of ≤ 0.62. CONCLUSION: In HF patients receiving optimal medical therapy, a decrease in CI <0.6 was associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Obtaining an optimal HR response to exercise, even in patients receiving optimal β-blocker therapy, may be a therapeutic target in the HF population.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".