Randomized Trial of Warfarin, Aspirin, and Clopidogrel in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic heart failure remains a major cause of mortality and morbidity. The role of antithrombotic therapy in patients with chronic heart failure has long been debated. The objective of this study was to determine the optimal antithrombotic agent for heart failure patients with reduced ejection fractions who are in sinus rhythm. METHODS AND RESULTS: This prospective, randomized clinical trial of open-label warfarin (target international normalized ratio of 2.5 to 3.0) and double-blind treatment with either aspirin (162 mg once daily) or clopidogrel (75 mg once daily) had a 30-month enrollment period and a minimum of 12 months of treatment. We enrolled 1587 men and women >/=18 years of age with symptomatic heart failure for at least 3 months who were in sinus rhythm and had left ventricular ejection fraction of </=35%. The primary outcome was the time to first occurrence of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. For the primary composite end point, the hazard ratios were as follows: for warfarin versus aspirin, 0.98 (95% CI, 0.86 to 1.12; P=0.77); for clopidogrel versus aspirin, 1.08 (95% CI, 0.83 to 1.40; P=0.57); and for warfarin versus clopidogrel, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.68 to 1.16; P=0.39). Warfarin was associated with fewer nonfatal strokes than aspirin or clopidogrel. Hospitalization for worsening heart failure occurred in 116 (22.2%), 97 (18.5%), and 89 (16.5%) patients treated with aspirin, clopidogrel, and warfarin, respectively (P=0.02 for warfarin versus aspirin). CONCLUSIONS: The primary outcome measure and the mortality data do not support the primary hypotheses that warfarin is superior to aspirin and that clopidogrel is superior to aspirin.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".