Effects of Serelaxin in Patients Admitted for Acute Heart Failure: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The effectiveness and safety of 48 h intravenous 30 μg/kg/day serelaxin infusion in acute heart failure (AHF) has been studied in six randomized, controlled clinical trials. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a fixed-effect meta-analysis including all studies of intravenous serelaxin initiated within the first 16 h of admission for AHF. Endpoints considered were the primary and secondary endpoints examined in the serelaxin phase III studies. In six randomized controlled trials, 6105 total patients were randomized to receive intravenous serelaxin 30 μg/kg/day and 5254 patients to control. Worsening heart failure to day 5 occurred in 6.0% and 8.1% of patients randomized to serelaxin and control, respectively (hazard ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.67-0.89; P = 0.0002). Serelaxin had no statistically significant effect on length of stay, or cardiovascular death, or heart or renal failure rehospitalization. Serelaxin administration resulted in statistically significant improvement in markers of renal function and reductions in both N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and troponin. No significant adverse outcomes were noted with serelaxin. Through the last follow-up, which occurred at an average of 4.5 months (1-6 months), serelaxin administration was associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality, with an estimated hazard ratio of 0.87 (95% confidence interval 0.77-0.98; P = 0.0261). CONCLUSIONS: Administration of intravenous serelaxin to patients admitted for AHF was associated with a highly significant reduction in the risk of 5-day worsening heart failure and in changes in renal function markers, but not length of stay, or cardiovascular death, or heart or renal failure rehospitalization. Serelaxin administration was safe and associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality.
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 | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.050 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".