Heart Failure in the Outpatient Versus Inpatient Setting: Findings from the BIOSTAT-CHF Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Patients with symptomatic heart failure (HF) require additive therapies and have a poor prognosis. However, patient characteristics and clinical outcome between HF patients treated in the outpatient setting vs. those who are hospitalized remain scarce. METHODS AND RESULTS: The BIOlogy Study to TAilored Treatment in Chronic Heart Failure (BIOSTAT-CHF) included 2516 patients with symptoms and/or signs of HF: 1694 as inpatients and 822 as outpatients. Compared to ambulatory HF patients, inpatients had higher heart rate, urea, N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, lower blood pressure, lower estimated glomerular filtration rate, sodium, potassium, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, had more often peripheral oedema, diabetes, anaemia, and were less often treated with beta-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi). Outpatients had a more frequent history of HF hospitalization and received more frequently beta-blockers and/or ACEi/angiotensin receptor blockers up-titrated to target doses (P < 0.001). Inpatients had higher rates of the primary outcome of death or HF hospitalization: incidence rate per 100 person-years of 33.4 [95% confidence interval (CI) 31.1-35.9] for inpatients vs. 18.5 (95% CI 16.4-21.0) for outpatients; adjusted hazard ratio 1.24 (95% CI 1.07-1.43). Subdividing patients into low, intermediate and high-risk categories, the primary outcome event rates were 14.3 (95% CI 12.3-16.7), 36.6 (95% CI 32.2-41.5), and 71.3 (95% CI 64.4-79.0) for inpatients vs. 8.4 (95% CI 6.6-10.6), 29.8 (95% CI 24.5-36.2), and 43.3 (95% CI 34.7-54.0) for outpatients, respectively. These findings were externally replicated. CONCLUSIONS: Marked differences were observed between inpatients and outpatients with HF. Overall, inpatients were sicker and had higher event rates. However, a substantial proportion of outpatients had similar or higher event rates compared to inpatients. These findings suggest that HF outpatients also have poor prognosis and may be the focus of future trials.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".