Prediction of Heart Failure Hospitalizations Based on the Direct Measurement of Intrathoracic Impedance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: OptiVol fluid index was developed as a transthoracic impedance-based indicator of short-term risk for heart failure hospitalization (HFH). OptiVol is calculated as the accumulating difference between daily impedance (measured impedance) and long-term average impedance (reference impedance). Measured impedance alone was thought to have limited prognostic utility; however, measured impedance has the advantage of being simple, direct, and possibly additive to OptiVol fluid index in establishing long-term HFH risk. We tested the hypothesis that directly measured impedance has independent prognostic value in predicting long-term HFH risk and that changes in measured impedance result in a change in predicted long-term HFH risk. METHODS AND RESULTS: A retrospective analysis of 1719 patients studied in PARTNERS-HF, FAST, and RAFT studies was performed. Baseline measured impedance was determined using daily values averaged over 1 month, from Month 6 to 7 post implant; change in measured impedance was determined from values averaged over 1 month, from Month 7 to 8 post implant compared with baseline. The predictive value of baseline measured impedance for HFHs was assessed beginning 7 months post implant. The predictive value of a change in measured impedance for a change in HFHs was assessed beginning 8 months post implant. Baseline measured impedance successfully predicted HFHs. For example, 3 year HFH rate for low baseline impedance < 70 Ω was 23%; for high baseline impedance ≥ 70 Ω was 15% (P < 0.001). Changes in measured impedance resulted in changes in predicted HFHs. For example, when a baseline impedance of ≥70 fell during follow-up to <70 Ω, the subsequent HFHs were 15% compared with 4% in patients with measured impedance that remained >70 Ω (P = 0.004). In addition, when baseline measured impedance fell during follow-up by >1%, 2%, or 3%, subsequent HFHs increased to 13%, 17%, or 18%, respectively. Finally, the prognostic value of measured impedance was additive to the prognostic value of the OptiVol fluid index. CONCLUSIONS: Direct measurements of intrathoracic impedance using an implanted device can be used to stratify patients at varying risk of long-term HFH. These direct measurements of impedance have practical clinical appeal because they are simple, continuous, and ambulatory.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".