Use of Oral Proton Pump Inhibitors is not Associated with Harm in Patients with Chronic Heart Failure in an Ambulatory Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) produce negative inotropic effects on the human myocardium at clinically relevant plasma concentrations. We conducted this study to determine whether PPI use was associated with excess mortality in patients with both ischaemic and non-ischaemic heart failure (HF). METHODS AND RESULTS: The impact of PPIs on all-cause mortality was examined using a population-based cohort of Alberta residents over the age of 65 with a diagnosis of HF, logistic regression analysis, and a nested case-control study were used to examine the association between current medication use and mortality. Compared with non-PPI users (n= 15,676, 71% of the HF cohort), PPI users (n= 6431, 29% of the HF cohort) were more likely to be women and had more co-morbidities. Mortality in the first year after diagnosis of HF was 32% (n= 5659) in PPI non-users and 26% (n= 1153) in PPI users. Logistic regression modelling showed that PPI use was associated with a relative reduction in mortality rates compared with non-use [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81-0.93]. Nested case-control analysis of the 5815 patients who died matched to 9934 controls, revealed that current PPI use was not associated with excess mortality (aOR 0.88, 95%CI 0.77-1.01), while use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blocker s (aOR 0.70, 95%CI 0.62-0.79) or beta-blockers (aOR 0.57, 95%CI 0.50-0.66), was associated with a relative reduction in mortality. CONCLUSION: The use of PPIs in patients with HF is common. Despite in vitro concerns about negative inotropic effects with PPIs, there is no association with increased risk of mortality in chronic HF patients who use PPIs in an ambulatory setting.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".