Beta-blockers and cardiovascular outcomes in dialysis patients: a cohort study in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Beta-blockers may be cardioprotective in patients receiving chronic dialysis. We examined cardiovascular outcomes among incident dialysis patients receiving beta-blocker therapy. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study employing linked healthcare databases in Ontario, Canada. We studied all consecutive chronic dialysis patients aged≥66 years who initiated dialysis between 1 July 1991 and 31 July 2007. Patients were divided into three groups according to new medication use after the initiation of chronic dialysis. The three groups were patients initiated on beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers and statins only. Patients in the beta-blocker and calcium channel blocker groups could also be concurrently receiving a statin. The primary outcome was time to a composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, stroke or coronary revascularization. RESULTS: There were a total of 1836 patients (504 beta-blocker, 570 calcium channel blocker and 762 statin-only users). Compared to statin-only use, beta-blocker use was not associated with improved cardiovascular outcomes [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92-1.23]. As expected, calcium channel blocker use was also not associated with improved cardiovascular outcomes (aHR 0.91, 95% CI 0.79-1.06). Among all subgroup analyses by beta-blocker attributes, only high-dose beta-blocker therapy was associated with better cardiovascular outcomes as compared to low-dose beta-blockers (aHR 0.50, 95% CI 0.29-0.88). CONCLUSIONS: We observed no beneficial effect of beta-blocker use among patients receiving chronic dialysis relative to our comparator groups. Given current uncertainty around the cardioprotective benefits of beta-blockers in patients receiving dialysis, a large randomized clinical trial is warranted.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".