Nesiritide in Patients Hospitalized for Acute Heart Failure: Does Timing Matter? Implication for Future Acute Heart Failure Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: It remains unclear if early administration of i.v. nesiritide in patients hospitalized with acute heart failure (AHF) is associated with improved clinical outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed data from 7007 patients enrolled in ASCEND-HF to examine the associations between time to treatment with study medication (nesiritide or placebo) and clinical endpoints: (i) moderate to marked dyspnoea relief on a 7-point Likert scale at 6 h; (ii) 30-day all-cause mortality or re-hospitalization; and (iii) 30-day all-cause mortality. The median time to study drug administration was 16.7 h (25th, 75th percentiles = 6.5, 23.1), with significant regional variation (e.g. median of 13.0 h in Asia-Pacific vs. 18.4 h in North America). After risk adjustment, each hour delay in study medication after the first 10 h from initial hospital presentation was associated with modestly reduced odds of dyspnoea relief [(adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98-0.99; P < 0.0001]. Every hour delay in study medication was associated with modestly higher all-cause mortality or re-hospitalization (unadjusted OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.01-1.02; P < 0.001) due to pre-randomization therapies and known predictors of 30-day outcomes (adjusted P = 0.12). There was no significant association between time to study drug and all-cause mortality (P > 0.08). CONCLUSION: In a large international AHF trial, time to treatment with study medication varied markedly across regions. Earlier administration of study medication was associated with modestly better dyspnoea relief, but not 30-day clinical outcomes. The association between timing of treatment with study medication and study endpoints may have implications for the interpretation of AHF studies and future trial design.
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 | 0.025 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".