MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2981519727 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz745.0605

P3753Does empagliflozin modulate the autonomic system among patients with type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease? Insights from the Holter sub-study of the EMPA-Heart CardioLink-6 Randomised Trial

2019· article· en· W2981519727 on OpenAlexaff
Vinay Garg, Subodh Verma, Kim A. Connelly, Andrew T. Yan, Aditya Sikand, Amit X. Garg, Paul Dorian, Fei Zuo, Lawrence A. Leiter, Bernard Zinman, Peter Jüni, Atul Verma, Adrian Quan, C. David Mazer, Andrew C.T. Ha

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkMount Sinai HospitalSouthlake Regional Health CenterUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpagliflozinMedicineCardiologyHeart rate variabilityInternal medicineCoronary artery diseasePlaceboType 2 diabetesDiabetes mellitusHeart rateBlood pressureEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction The mechanism behind how empagliflozin, a sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor, reduces all-cause and cardiovascular mortality among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and coronary artery disease (CAD) is unknown. Autonomic tone, as reflected by changes in heart rate variability (HRV), is an established prognosticator in patients with CAD and/or heart failure. Purpose To assess if empagliflozin treatment changes HRV in subjects with T2DM and CAD. Methods In the double-blind EMPA-Heart trial, 97 subjects with T2DM and CAD were randomised to empagliflozin 10 mg/day or placebo for 6 months and underwent 24-hour Holter monitoring at baseline and 6 months. Using automated algorithms, time and frequency HRV domain measures were obtained (standard deviation of NN intervals (SDNN); SD of the average NN intervals for each 5-minute segment (SDANN); root mean square of successive RR interval differences (rMSSD); % interval differences of successive NN intervals >50 ms (pNN50); ratio of low to high frequency (LF/HF)). Changes of these HRV parameters were calculated over 6 months. Between-group differences in HRV parameters were compared using ANCOVA. Results Complete Holter data (baseline and 6-month) were available for 68% (n=66) of the cohort. The average heart rate (HR) at baseline/6 months was 69.5±9.8 bpm/72.8±8.1 bpm and 76±10.4 bpm/76.5±10.6 in the placebo group and empagliflozin group, respectively. Both groups had similar changes in average HR over 6 months. Key Holter data are summarised in the table. SDNN and SDANN were higher in the placebo vs. empagliflozin group at 6 months; no significant difference was noted for all other measures. Empagliflozin 10 mg/day (n=33) Placebo (n=33) Adjusted difference between Empagliflozin and Placebo (ANCOVA) Baseline, Mean (SD) 6-month, Mean (SD) Baseline, Mean (SD) 6-month, Mean (SD) Mean, (95% CI) P-value SDNN (ms) 100.49 (43.74) 98.05 (38.86) 109.35 (30.02) 125.08 (43.83) −18.55 (−34.28, −2.82) 0.022 SDANN (ms) 86.84 (39.34) 83.76 (35.53) 94.70 (28.52) 118.28 (77.41) −20.24 (−37.27, −3.21) 0.021 rMSSD (ms) 27.00 (11.84) 27.22 (13.48) 28.00 (11.58) 27.17 (9.38) −1.23 (−6.02, 3.55) 0.608 pNN50 (%) 7.81 (7.59) 8.32 (9.51) 8.26 (7.8) 6.93 (5.35) 0.51 (−2.61, 3.62) 0.746 LF/HF ratio 1.63 (0.52) 1.65 (0.51) 1.53 (0.43) 1.83 (0.82) −0.08 (−0.38, 0.22) 0.602 Conclusions Among subjects with T2DM and CAD, changes in HRV over 6 months were similar in the empagliflozin and placebo arms suggesting that the mortality benefit conferred by empagliflozin is not associated with positive modulation of autonomic tone. Acknowledgement/Funding This trial was supported by an unrestricted investigator-initiated study grant from Boehringer Ingelheim.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.191 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicDiabetes Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→