Digoxin and clinical outcomes in the Global Rheumatic Heart Disease Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Digoxin is widely used in patients with rheumatic heart disease (RHD) despite a lack of data on its impact on clinical outcomes. We aimed to determine the association of digoxin use on clinical outcomes in patients with RHD. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of the association of digoxin use with mortality at 2 years in a large RHD registry. Secondary outcomes were recurrent heart failure (HF) and hospitalisation for any cause. We assessed associations using multivariable logistic regression in the entire cohort and in subgroups of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and HF. We also estimated average treatment effects from propensity-adjusted analyses using inverse probability treatment weighting. RESULTS: Information on digoxin use at baseline was available for 98.7% (3298/3343) of patients. In the overall population, digoxin was significantly associated with mortality (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.04, p<0.0001) and recurrent HF (OR 1.48, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.04, p=0.019). On propensity-weighted analyses, this effect was markedly attenuated (OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.09, p=0.005). Patients in sinus rhythm without HF had a higher propensity-adjusted odds of death with digoxin use (OR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.12, p=0.015), but those with both AF and HF had lower mortality (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.98, p=0.019). CONCLUSION: Digoxin use is associated with higher mortality in patients with RHD, but this is greatly attenuated on propensity adjustment, indicating the presence of substantial treatment bias. The adjusted estimates may therefore not be reliable, and large randomised trials are needed to determine the true effect of digoxin in patients with RHD.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".