Abstract 17176: Burden and Prognostic Importance of Heart Failure Signs and Symptoms - Differences in Heart Failure With Preserved versus Reduced Ejection Fraction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: In patients with heart failure (HF), worsening of HF signs and symptoms is associated with increased cardiovascular (CV) risk. Differences in burden of HF signs and symptoms and their prognostic value in HF with preserved (HFpEF) versus reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are poorly understood. Hypothesis: High burden of HF signs and symptoms is associated with adverse CV events, and is of greater prognostic value in patients with HFrEF. Methods: Using combined data from PARADIGM-HF (LVEF eligibility ≤40%) and PARAGON-HF (LVEF eligibility ≥45%), Cox models were fit to assess the relationship between burden of HF signs and symptoms (≤2 or ≥3) and first HHF or CV death in patients with HFrEF (n=8385) and HFpEF (n=4709) with available signs and symptoms at screening (rest dyspnea, exertional dyspnea, paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea, orthopnea, fatigue, edema, jugular venous distension, rales, third heart sound). Results: High burden of HF signs and symptoms (≥3) was more common among patients with HFpEF (48%) than HFrEF (42%, p<0.001). In both HF types, patients with high burden of signs and symptoms were more commonly female, had higher NYHA functional class and NT-proBNP and were more frequently prescribed diuretics (all p<0.001). Patients with HFrEF and high burden of signs and symptoms more commonly had atrial fibrillation (AF) than those with low burden (32 vs 41%, p<0.001) while prevalence of AF was similar regardless of sign and symptom burden in HFpEF (32 vs 32%, p = 0.98). High burden of signs and symptoms was associated with greater risk of HHF or CV death in patients with HFrEF (HR 1.47; 95% CI, 1.35-1.61) than in those with HFpEF (HR 1.28; 95% CI, 1.13-1.44; p interaction = 0.03) (Figure). Conclusion: Patients with HFpEF have slightly higher burden of HF signs and symptoms than those with HFrEF. High burden of HF signs and symptoms identifies patients at high risk foradverse CV events, and may have greater prognostic importance in patients with HFrEF than HFpEF.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".