Worsening Renal Function and Outcome in Heart Failure Patients with Reduced and Preserved Ejection Fraction and the Impact of Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Treatment: Data from the CHARM-Study Programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aims We investigated the association between worsening renal function (WRF) that occurs during renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system inhibition initation and outcome in heart failure (HF) patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFPEF) and compared this with HF patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFREF). Methods and results We examined changes in estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and the relationship between WRF (defined as ≥26.5 µmol/L and ≥25% increase in serum creatinine from baseline to 6 weeks) and outcome, according to randomized treatment, in patients with HFREF (EF <45%; n = 1569) and HFPEF (EF ≥45%; n = 836) in the CHARM programme. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization. Estimated GFR decreased 9.0 ± 21 vs. 4.0 ± 21 mL/min/1.73 m2 with candesartan and placebo, respectively, and this was similar in HFREF and HFPEF. WRF developed more frequently with candesartan, 16% vs. 7%, P < 0.001, with similar findings in patients with HFREF and HFPEF. WRF was associated with a higher risk of the primary outcome: multivariable hazard ratio (HR) 1.26, 95% confidence interval 1.03–1.54, P = 0.022, in both treatment groups, and in both HFREF and HFPEF (P for interaction 0.98). In HFREF, WRF was mostly related to HF hospitalization, while in HFPEF, WRF seemed more associated with mortality. Conclusions GFR decreased more and WRF was more common with candesartan compared with placebo, and this was similar in HFREF and HFPEF. WRF was associated with worse outcomes in HFREF and HFPEF. Although no formal interaction was present, the association between candesartan treatment, WRF, and type of clinical outcome was slightly different between HFREF and HFPEF.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".