MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153622558 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1406430

Ivabradine in Stable Coronary Artery Disease without Clinical Heart Failure

2014· article· en· W2153622558 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kim Fox, Ian Ford, Philippe Gabríel Steg, Jean‐Claude Tardif, Michał Tendera, Roberto Ferrari

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart rate and cardiovascular health
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsIvabradineMedicineCardiologyHeart failureInternal medicineMyocardial infarctionHeart ratePlaceboCoronary artery diseaseHazard ratioAnginaClinical endpointConfidence intervalRandomized controlled trialBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: An elevated heart rate is an established marker of cardiovascular risk. Previous analyses have suggested that ivabradine, a heart-rate-reducing agent, may improve outcomes in patients with stable coronary artery disease, left ventricular dysfunction, and a heart rate of 70 beats per minute or more. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ivabradine, added to standard background therapy, in 19,102 patients who had both stable coronary artery disease without clinical heart failure and a heart rate of 70 beats per minute or more (including 12,049 patients with activity-limiting angina [class ≥II on the Canadian Cardiovascular Society scale, which ranges from I to IV, with higher classes indicating greater limitations on physical activity owing to angina]). We randomly assigned patients to placebo or ivabradine, at a dose of up to 10 mg twice daily, with the dose adjusted to achieve a target heart rate of 55 to 60 beats per minute. The primary end point was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes or nonfatal myocardial infarction. RESULTS: At 3 months, the mean (±SD) heart rate of the patients was 60.7±9.0 beats per minute in the ivabradine group versus 70.6±10.1 beats per minute in the placebo group. After a median follow-up of 27.8 months, there was no significant difference between the ivabradine group and the placebo group in the incidence of the primary end point (6.8% and 6.4%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.96 to 1.20; P=0.20), nor were there significant differences in the incidences of death from cardiovascular causes and nonfatal myocardial infarction. Ivabradine was associated with an increase in the incidence of the primary end point among patients with activity-limiting angina but not among those without activity-limiting angina (P=0.02 for interaction). The incidence of bradycardia was higher with ivabradine than with placebo (18.0% vs. 2.3%, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who had stable coronary artery disease without clinical heart failure, the addition of ivabradine to standard background therapy to reduce the heart rate did not improve outcomes. (Funded by Servier; SIGNIFY Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN61576291.).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations482
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicHeart rate and cardiovascular healthFrench-language works237,207