4181Prognosis of patients with mid-range left ventricular ejection fraction treated with PCI: insight from the global leaders study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (left ventricular ejection fraction between 40 to 49%) was introduced in the 2016 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for heart failure. The prognosis of the mid-range of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was less well assessed in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Purpose We aimed to assess the 2-year outcomes of patients with mid-range ejection fraction (LVEF between 40 to 49%) after PCI compared with reduced LVEF (<40%) and preserved LVEF (≥50) in the GLOBAL LEADERS study. Methods The GLOBAL LEADERS study was a multicenter, randomized trial comparing the efficacy and safety of two antiplatelet strategies in all-comers patients undergoing PCI with biolimus-A9 eluting stent. Patients with available information of LVEF were eligible in the present analysis. Patients were classified according to their LVEF into three groups; preserved (LVEF ≥50), mid-range (LVEF 40–49%) and reduced (LVEF <40%) left ventricular ejection fraction. Clinical outcomes at 2 years after PCI were compared among three groups in the multivariable Cox regression analysis. The primary outcome of present study was all-cause mortality at 2 years after PCI. The secondary outcomes were patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE). Individual components of the composite endpoint, definite or probable stent thrombosis and bleeding academic research consortium (BARC) type 3 or 5 were also reported. Results Out of 15968 patients included in the GLOBAL LEADERS study, information of LVEF was available in 15008 patients (93.99%); 12,128 patients (80.81%) were in the group of preserved LVEF, 1,737 patients (11.57%) were in the mid-range LVEF group and 1,143 patients (7.62%) were in the reduced LVEF group. The risk of all-cause mortality and POCE at 2 years were significantly different among the three groups. In an adjusted model, compared with the group of preserved LVEF, the hazard ratio for the all-cause mortality at 2 years rose from 1.89 (95% CI, 1.46–2.45) to 3.72 (95% CI, 2.95–4.70) in the group of mid-range and reduced LVEF respectively. Similar rises were observed for the POCE at 2 years from 1.27 (95% CI, 1.11–1.44) in the group of mid-range LVEF to 1.63 (95% CI, 1.42–1.87) in the group of reduced LVEF. The risk of stroke, myocardial infarction, and definite or probable stent thrombosis in patients with mid-range LVEF was not different from patients with reduced LVEF (see figure). A similar risk of revascularization was observed among the three groups. Outcomes among three LVEF categories Conclusion Patients with mid-range LVEF undergoing PCI had a different prognosis from patients with reduced LVEF and preserved LVEF in term of survival and composite ischemic endpoints at 2 years.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".