Does empagliflozin modulate the autonomic nervous system among individuals with type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease? The EMPA-HEART CardioLink-6 Holter analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined if empagliflozin was associated with modulation of cardiac autonomic tone among subjects with type 2 diabetes and stable coronary artery disease (CAD) relative to placebo. Using ambulatory 24-h Holter electrocardiographic data prospectively collected from a randomized trial, we compared changes in heart rate variability (HRV) parameters between empagliflozin- and placebo-assigned subjects over a follow-up period of 6 months. Measured HRV domains included: standard deviation (SD) of NN intervals (SDNN), SD of average NN intervals per 5-min (SDANN), root mean square of successive RR interval differences (RMSSD), % successive NN intervals differing >50 ms (ms) (pNN50), low frequency (LF), high frequency (HF) and the LF/HF ratio (LF:HF). Differences in HRV parameters between the 2 groups were compared with analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Statistical measures of significance were reported as adjusted differences between the 2 groups and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Sixty-six subjects completed 24-h Holter monitoring at baseline and 6-months. Over 6 months, the change in HRV was similar between subjects treated with empagliflozin vs. placebo for the following parameters: RMSSD -1.2 ms (-6.0 to 3.6 ms); pNN50 0.5% (-2.6 to 3.6%); VLF -907.8 ms2 (-2388.8 to 573.1 ms2); LF -341 ms2 (-878.7 to 196.7 ms2); HF -33.8 ms2 (-111.1 to 43.5 ms2); LF:HF -0.1 (-0.4 to 0.2). Subjects who received placebo experienced an increase in SDNN 18.6 ms (2.8–34.3 ms) and SDANN 20.2 ms (3.2–37.3 ms) relative to those treated with empagliflozin. Compared to placebo, empagliflozin did not result in changes in autonomic tone among individuals with type 2 diabetes and stable coronary artery disease.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".