Coronary angiography in worsening heart failure: determinants, findings and prognostic implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Coronary angiography is regularly performed in patients with worsening signs and/or symptoms of heart failure (HF). However, little is known on the determinants, findings and associated clinical outcomes of coronary angiography performed in patients with worsening HF. METHODS: The BIOSTAT-CHF (a systems BIOlogy Study to TAilored Treatment in Chronic Heart Failure) programme enrolled 2516 patients with worsening symptoms and/or signs of HF, either hospitalised or in the outpatient setting. All patients were included in the present analysis. RESULTS: Of the 2516 patients included, 315 (12.5%) underwent coronary angiography within the 30 days after the onset of worsening symptoms and/or signs of HF. Subjects who underwent angiography were more often observed as inpatients, had more often an overt acute coronary syndrome, had higher troponin I levels, were younger and had better renal function (all p≤0.01). Patients who underwent coronary angiography had a lower risk of the primary outcome of death and/or HF hospitalisation (adjusted HR=0.71, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.89, p=0.003) and death (adjusted HR=0.59, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.80, p=0.001). Among the patients who underwent coronary angiography, those with a coronary stenosis (39%) had a worse prognosis than those without stenosis (adjusted HR for the primary outcome=1.71, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.64, p=0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Coronary angiography was performed in <13% of patients with symptoms and/or signs of worsening HF. These patients were remarkably different from those who did not undergo coronary angiography and had a lower risk of subsequent events. The presence of coronary stenosis on coronary angiography was associated with a worse prognosis.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".