Abstract 338: Qtc Prolongation in Patients With Left Ventricular Heart Failure and Its Relation to Increased Mortality and Hospitalizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the second leading cause of death among Canadians for decades. It is also no surprise that heart failure rates are on the rise. 600,000 cases of heart failure are diagnosed yearly in Canada. The aim of our investigation was to conduct a retrospective observational study to investigate if prolonged QTc intervals lead to increased re-hospitalization and mortality in patients suffering from Left Ventricular Failure. Methods: We performed an observational case series with a retrospective chart review of 356 CHARM clinic patients who have been diagnosed with Left Ventricular Heart Failure from August 2017 till June 2019. The primary endpoint was to look at patients with left ventricular Heart failure, QTc interval recorded and their files where verified from Alberta’s health care portal to see if re-hospitalizations increased and/or mortality happened. Pre-cautions taken not to include patients with Cardiac re-synchronization therapy and congenital prolonged QTc interval in the study. Patients in Group A were HF patients who had prolonged QTc interval and Group B HF patients with Normal QTc interval. Bazett formula was applied to the QT and correct to Heart rate accordingly. Results: The data from 356 patients with heart failure revealed the following Patients with Heart failure and prolonged QTc interval- 35% had re-hospitalizations while heart failure patients with normal QTc interval had a re-hospitalization rate of 13%. Mortality was also seen higher in Group A versus Group B. It must be noted that Medications that prolonged QT interval was also accounted for and notifications were made as to the presence of arrythmia in patients with increased QT intervals. Presence or increased incidence of arrhythmia there by leads to increased chances of mortality and re-admission. Group 1 had the consumption of medications that increased QT interval more prevalent that Group 2. Conclusion: Prolongation of QTc interval should be noted as an important prognostic factor into the re-admission and mortality rate of patients with heart failure as subtracting various flawing factors. Further resources and investigation should be conducted to truly figure out if QTc prolongation leads to 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".