MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2396265296 · doi:10.1161/jaha.116.003230

Angiotensin‐Converting Enzyme Inhibitor Initiation and Dose Uptitration in Children With Cardiovascular Disease: A Retrospective Review of Standard Clinical Practice and a Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial

2016· review· en· W2396265296 on OpenAlexafffund
S. Lucy Roche, Kathryn Timberlake, Cedric Manlhiot, Mervin Balasingam, Judith Wilson, Kristen George, Brian W. McCrindle, Paul F. Kantor

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto General HospitalSickKids FoundationUniversity of AlbertaStollery Children's HospitalHospital for Sick Children
FundersHospital for Sick Children
KeywordsMedicineCaptoprilClinical trialRandomized controlled trialProspective cohort studyRetrospective cohort studyInternal medicineProtocol (science)DiseaseACE inhibitorAngiotensin-converting enzymeCardiologyBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) are a mainstay of medical management in pediatric cardiology. However, there are no data defining how best to initiate and uptitrate the dose of these medications in children. METHODS AND RESULTS: Retrospective chart review revealed only 24% of our pediatric cardiology inpatients were discharged on predefined optimal doses of ACEIs and few underwent further dose uptitration in the 8 weeks after hospital discharge. Therefore, 2 alternative protocols for initiation of captopril were compared in a prospective randomized clinical trial. A "rapid uptitration" protocol reached an optimal dose on day 3, whereas the alternative, "prolonged uptitration" protocol, reached an optimal dose on day 9. Forty-6 patients (54% male) were recruited to the trial, with a median age of 0.7 year (IQR 0.5-2.3 years). Captopril was initiated while in intensive care in 39% of patients and on the cardiology ward in 61%. There were no differences between the protocols in episodes of hypotension, symptomatic hypotension, or indices of renal function. Patients following the rapid protocol reached higher doses of captopril (0.93±0.24 versus 0.57±0.38 mg/kg per dose, P<0.0001) and were more likely to have achieved the predefined target (88% versus 43%, P=0.002) and optimal ACEI doses (80% versus 29%, P=0.001) before discharge. CONCLUSIONS: A protocol of rapid ACEI dose uptitration for infants and children with cardiovascular disease can be introduced safely, even in patients receiving intensive care therapy. Compared with standard clinical practice or with a more prolonged protocol, rapid ACEI dose uptitration achieves a higher dosage in this population with no evident disadvantages. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/. Unique identifier: NCT00742040.

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)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.093
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.093
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.352 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations16
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart AssociationSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207