Vericiguat in Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effect of vericiguat, a novel oral soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator, in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction who had recently been hospitalized or had received intravenous diuretic therapy is unclear. METHODS: In this phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned 5 050 patients with chronic heart failure (New York Heart Association class II, III, or IV) and an ejection fraction of less than 45% to receive vericiguat (target dose 10 mg once daily) or placebo, in addition to guideline-based medical therapy.The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes or first hospitalization for heart failure. RESULTS: Over a median of 10.8 months, a primary-outcome event occurred in 897 of 2 526 patients (35.5%) in the vericiguat group and in 972 of 2 524 patients (38.5%) in the placebo group (p = 0.02). A total of 691 patients (27.4%) in the vericiguat group and 747 patients (29.6%) in the placebo group were hospitalized for heart failure. Death from cardiovascular causes occurred in 414 patients (16.4%) in the vericiguat group and in 441 patients (17.5%) in the placebo group. The composite endpoint of death from any cause or hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 957 patients (37.9%) in the vericiguat group and in 1 032 patients (40.9%) in the placebo group (p = 0.02). Symptomatic hypotension occurred in 9.1% of the patients in the vericiguat group and in 7.9% of the patients in the placebo group (p = 0.12), syncope occurred in 4.0% of the patients in the vericiguat group and in 3.5% of the patients in the placebo group (p = 0.30). CONCLUSION: Among patients with high-risk heart failure, the incidence of death from cardiovascular causes or hospitalization for heart failure was lower among those who received vericiguat than those who received placebo.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".