Treatment with 24 Hour Istaroxime Infusion in Patients Hospitalised for Acute Heart Failure: A Randomised, Placebo-Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: pump and activation of the SERCA2a pump. This study assessed the effects of a 24 h infusion of istaroxime in patients hospitalised for acute heart failure (AHF). METHODS AND RESULTS: We included patients hospitalised for AHF with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% and E/e' > 10. Patients were randomised to a 24 h intravenous infusion of placebo or istaroxime at doses of 0.5 μg/kg/min (cohort 1: placebo n = 19; istaroxime n = 41) or 1.0 μg/kg/min (cohort 2: placebo n = 20, istaroxime n = 40). The primary endpoint of change in E/e' ratio from baseline to 24 h decreased with istaroxime vs. placebo (cohort 1: -4.55 ± 4.75 istaroxime 0.5 μg/kg/min vs. -1.55 ± 4.11 placebo, P = 0.029; cohort 2: -3.16 ± 2.59 istaroxime 1.0 μg/kg/min vs. -1.08 ± 2.72 placebo, P = 0.009). Both istaroxime doses significantly increased stroke volume index and decreased heart rate. Systolic blood pressure increased with istaroxime, achieving significance with the high dose. Self-reported dyspnoea and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide improved in all groups without significant differences between istaroxime and placebo. No significant differences in cardiac troponin absolute values or clinically relevant arrhythmias were observed during or after istaroxime infusion. Serious cardiac adverse events (including arrhythmias and hypotension) did not differ between placebo and istaroxime groups. The most common adverse events were injection site reactions and gastrointestinal events, the latter primarily with istaroxime 1.0 μg/kg/min. CONCLUSIONS: In patients hospitalised for AHF with reduced ejection fraction, a 24 h infusion of istaroxime improved parameters of diastolic and systolic cardiac function without major cardiac adverse effects.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".