In-hospital treatment and outcomes of heart failure in specialist and non-specialist services: a retrospective cohort study in the elderly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Heart failure is common in the elderly and is associated with high rates of hospitalisation, readmission and mortality. International guidelines however are not frequently implemented in this population. METHODS: We retrospectively studied the clinical profile, investigations, treatment on discharge, length of hospital stay, readmission rate and mortality in 261 patients, aged ≥75 years, with a discharge diagnosis of heart failure. Clinical frailty was estimated using the Canadian Study of Health and Aging clinical frailty scale. RESULTS: Hypertension (64%), atrial fibrillation (50.6%) and ischaemic heart disease (46%) were common, and 75.6% of patients were clinically vulnerable or frail. 23.5% of admitters had an inpatient echocardiogram and 20% of patients had at least one readmission episode for heart failure. On discharge, 64.6% of admissions were treated with an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin II receptor antagonist, 49.3% with a β blocker and 28.7% with an aldosterone receptor antagonist (ARA). Patients discharged from cardiology wards were more likely to receive a β blocker (p<0.05) versus care of elderly (COE) wards and readmitters were more likely to receive an ARA (p<0.05) versus patients with a single admission. In total, 34 inpatient deaths were recorded (13%) and 80 deaths (30.7%) were recorded long-term (median follow-up 337 days). Long-term mortality was significantly lower in single admitters versus readmitters (p<0.0001) and in those managed on cardiology wards versus COE wards (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with patients hospitalised on geriatric wards, those admitted to cardiology units were discharged more frequently with recommended medications and had a lower long-term mortality.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".