Ventricular ejection fraction over time in patients on intensive home hemodialysis: A retrospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Intensive hemodialysis has been demonstrated to have several beneficial cardiovascular effects. There is a paucity of studies examining the effect of intensive home hemodialysis (IHHD) on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study at the Toronto General Hospital including all IHHD patients between 1999 and 2017 with baseline and follow-up echocardiograms for at least a year. Patients were categorized according to LVEF at follow-up: patients with normal and patients with abnormal LVEF and/or a decline in LVEF. Normal LVEF was defined as ≥55% and a decline as ≥5% at follow-up compared to baseline Cox regression analyses were performed to ascertain the association between reduced LVEF and reaching the composite endpoint of death, cardiovascular hospitalization, and technique failure, respectively. Multivariate logistic analysis was used to investigate possible risk factors for changes in LVEF. FINDINGS: A total of 154 patients were included in the study. At baseline, 18.8% (29/154) of patients had reduced LVEF. After a mean follow-up of 3.9 years, overall mean LVEF did not change (59.3% [at follow-up] vs. 59.9% [baseline], P = 0.45). Seventeen out of the 130 patients with normal LVEF (13.1%) and nine out of the 24 with abnormal LVEF (37.9%) reached the composite endpoint of death, cardiovascular hospitalization, or technique failure. Reduced LVEF at baseline odds ratio ((OR) 13.26 [95% confidence interval (CI) 4.62-38.05]) as well as coronary heart disease (OR 7.82 [95% CI 1.92-31.82]) were associated with reduced ejection fraction at follow-up. When adjusted for age and diabetes, patients with abnormal LVEF were more likely to reach the composite endpoint hazard ratio ((HR) 3.85, 95% CI 1.70-8.71). We did not identify a risk factor associated with progression or worsening of LVEF. DISCUSSION: Preserved LVEF occurs in most patients on IHHD and is associated with better clinical outcomes. Further studies are needed to identify the mechanism affecting left ventricular function in patients undergoing intensive hemodialysis.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".