MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2982089035 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz748.0263

P1500Effects of empagliflozin on cardiac function in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: echocardiographic substudy of the EMPA-HEART cardiolink-6 trial

2019· article· en· W2982089035 on OpenAlexaff
Karan Bami, Sumeet Gandhi, Howard Leong‐Poi, Andrew T. Yan, Edwin Ho, M. Zahrani, Vinay Garg, Hwee Teoh, Adrian Quan, C. David Mazer, Subodh Verma, Géraldine Ong, Kim A. Connelly

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmpagliflozinMedicineEjection fractionPlaceboInternal medicineCardiologyVentricleDiastoleHeart failureDiabetes mellitusBlood pressureType 2 Diabetes MellitusEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The EMPA-HEART trial showed a reduction in left ventricular (LV) mass index by cardiac MRI at 6 months in patients treated with Empagliflozin vs placebo. A secondary analysis of key echocardiographic parameters was performed to provide further insight into the mechanism of LV remodeling. Methods All patients enrolled prospectively underwent transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) at baseline and at 6 months. Measurements were performed according to the American Society of Echocardiography guidelines. Key outcomes of interest included changes in diastolic function and right ventricle parameters at 6 months in patients treated with Empagliflozin vs placebo. Results A total of 97 patients were enrolled (49 treated with Empagliflozin and 48 in the placebo group). There was no significant difference in the change in average E/E' at 6-months in the Empagliflozin group vs placebo (−0.4 vs +0.2, adjusted difference −0.2, 95% CI [−1.3 to 0.82], p=0.7) Similarly, there was no difference between the groups in secondary TTE parameters (Table 1). Subgroup analyses showed no benefit among patients with baseline LVEF >50% vs. ≤50%, and baseline LV mass index ≥60 g/m2 vs <60 g/m2. Echocardiographic Parameter Placebo (n=48) Empagliflozin (n=49) Adjusted Difference Between Groups 95% CI P-Value Baseline 6 months Change Baseline 6 months Change LVEF (%)* 55.5 (8.7) 54.3 (8.9) −1.0 (6.5) 58.0 (7.5) 59.1 (8.57) 0.72 (5.1) 2.2 (−0.2, 4.7) 0.1 Diastolic Parameters: Average E/e' 10.1 (3.1) 10.3 (2.5) 0.2 (3.0) 10.6 (3.0) 10.5 (3.6) −0.4 (2.5) −0.2 (−1.3, 0.8) 0.7 Medial E/e' 12.3 (3.9) 12.5 (3.6) 0.1 (3.7) 12.6 (4.2) 12.6 (5.2) −0.3 (3.3) −0.3 (−1.7, 1.1) 0.7 Lateral E/e' 8.0 (2.8) 8.2 (2.2) 0.2 (2.7) 8.7 (2.6) 8.4 (2.5) −0.4 (2.7) −0.1 (−1.0, 0.8) 0.8 E velocity (cm/sec) 68.6 (15.2) 70.6 (14.7) 1.8 (15.4) 74.4 (18.2) 71.2 (16.8) −3.2 (15.1) −2.3 (−7.9, 3.3) 0.4 A velocity (cm/sec) 74.7 (17.9) 77.9 (18.8) 2.9 (15.9) 76.2 (16.5) 75.8 (14.5) −1.4 (11.7) −3.5 (−8.9, 1.6) 0.2 LA volume index (mL/m2) 32.7 (7.9) 30.8 (8.1) −2.0 (6.7) 30.2 (6.7) 28.7 (5.5) −1.6 (6.5) −0.9 (−3.4, 1.6) 0.5 RV Parameters: TAPSE (cm) 1.8 (0.5) 1.8 (0.4) 0.1 (0.4) 2.0 (1.2) 1.8 (0.4) −0.3 (1.4) −0.1 (−0.3, 0.1) 0.3 RV S' TDI (cm/sec) 10.9 (2.9) 10.6 (2.5) −0.1 (2.2) 10.4 (2.7) 10.2 (2.6) −0.4 (2.0) −0.3 (−1.2, 0.5) 0.4 *Measured by cardiac MRI. LA, left atrium; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; RV, right ventricle; TAPSE, tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion; TDI, tissue Doppler imaging. Data expressed as mean (standard deviation). Conclusion This study showed no significant change in key echocardiographic parameters in patients treated with Empagliflozin, suggesting that changes in loading conditions induced by empagliflozin (i.e. preload) do not mediate the reduction in LV mass.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designObservational
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→