MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Clinical determinants of incident aortic valve stenosis in patients treated with atorvastatin: results from three large randomized clinical trials

2013· article· en· W2094861696 on OpenAlexaff
Benoît J. Arsenault, S. Matthijs Boekholdt, Samia Mora, David A. DeMicco, Weihang Bao, J.‐C. Tardif, Pierre Amarenco, Terje R. Pedersen, P Barter, David D. Waters

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtorvastatinInternal medicineRosuvastatinCardiologyMyocardial infarctionSimvastatinStroke (engine)AsymptomaticPlaceboIncidence (geometry)StatinClinical trialRandomized controlled trialStenosisPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Aortic valve stenosis (AVS) is the most common valvular heart disease in the Western world, and may share some risk factors with coronary heart disease (CHD). Clinical trials have failed to show a benefit for statin therapy in delaying the progression of AVS among asymptomatic individuals with known AVS. Whether statin therapy may decrease the incidence of AVS in populations enriched with CHD risk factors is unknown. Our objective was to compare the incidence rates of AVS among patients treated with high- versus low-dose statin or placebo and to identify clinical risk factors associated with the risk of AVS. Methods and results: Results from three large-scale atorvastatin trials were included in this study, the Treating to New Targets (TNT) trial, in which 80 mg and 10 mg/day of atorvastatin were compared in patients with stable coronary disease, the Incremental Decrease in End Points Through Aggressive Lipid Lowering (IDEAL) trial, in which atorvastatin 80 mg was compared to simvastatin 20 mg/day in post-myocardial infarction patients, and the Stroke Prevention by Aggressive Reduction in Cholesterol levels (SPARCL) trial, in which 80 mg/day of atorvastatin was compared to placebo in patients with a recent stroke or transient ischemic attack. All patients with known AVS at baseline were excluded from this analysis. During the follow-up (median=4.9 years), 45 patients developed AVS in TNT, 28 in IDEAL and 9 in SPARCL. Among the 82 patients who developed AVS, 39 (47.6%) patients were treated with atorvastatin 80 mg and 43 (52.4%) were treated with low-dose statin or placebo (hazard ratio [HR]=0.91 [95% CI, 0.59-1.41], p=0.67). Risk factors that showed a significant association in univariate regression analyses were entered into a multivariate model. These risk factors included age, height, weight, body mass index, diabetes, angina, previous coronary artery bypass grafting, peripheral vascular disease, warfarin and antiplatelets use, prior use of statins and calcium channel blockers use. In multivariate analyses forcing treatment, sex and race into the model, age (hazard ratio [HR]=2.24 [95% CI, 1.66-3.02], p<0.0001 per 1-SD increment), diabetes (HR=1.69 [1.00-2.82], p=0.05), warfarin and antiplatelets use (HR=2.89 [1.80-4.62], p<0.0001) and prior statin use (HR=2.56 [1.48-4.44], p=0.03) were significantly associated with the onset of AVS. Conclusions: In this study, high-dose statin therapy did not impact the incidence of AVS. We found that age, diabetes, warfarin and antiplatelets use and prior use of statins were significant predictors of incident AVS in these high-risk 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.009
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.342 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments→French-language works237,207→