Left Ventricular Systolic and Diastolic Function, Remodelling, and Clinical Outcomes Among Patients with Diabetes Following Myocardial Infarction and the Influence of Direct Renin Inhibition with Aliskiren
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: We assessed the relationship between diabetes and cardiac structure and function following myocardial infarction (MI) and whether diabetes influences the effect of direct renin inhibition on change in left ventricular (LV) size. METHODS AND RESULTS: The ASPIRE trial enrolled 820 patients 2-8 weeks after MI with ejection fraction ≤ 45% and randomized them to the direct renin inhibitor aliskiren (n= 423) or placebo (n = 397) added to standard medical therapy. Echocardiography was performed at baseline and after 36 weeks in 672 patients with evaluable paired studies. Compared with non-diabetic patients, diabetic patients (n = 214) were at higher risk for a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, heart failure hospitalization, recurrent MI, stroke, or aborted sudden death (14 vs. 7%; adjusted hazard ratio 1.63, 95% confidence interval 1.01-2.64, P= 0.045), despite similar left ventricular ejection fraction (37.9 ± 5.3 vs. 37.6 ± 5.2%, P= 0.48) and end-systolic volume (ESV) (84 ± 25 vs. 82 ± 28 mL, P= 0.46). Diabetic patients demonstrated greater concentric remodelling (relative wall thickness 0.38 ± 0.07 vs. 0.36 ± 0.07, P= 0.0002) and evidence of higher LV filling pressure (E/E' 11.1 ± 5.3 vs. 9.1 ± 4.3, P= 0.0011). At 36 weeks, diabetic patients experienced similar per cent reduction in ESV overall (-4.9 ± 17.9 vs. -5.5 ± 16.9, P= 0.67) but tended to experience greater reduction in ESV than non-diabetic patients when treated with aliskiren (interaction P = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with non-diabetic patients, diabetic patients are at increased risk of CV events post-MI despite no greater LV enlargement or reduction in systolic function. Diabetic patients demonstrate greater concentric remodelling and evidence of higher LV filling pressure, suggesting diastolic dysfunction as a potential mechanism for the higher risk observed among these patients.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".