MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 15417: Impact of Udenafil on Vascular Function in Fontan Circulation: Results From the FUEL Trial

2020· article· en· W3104853101 on OpenAlexaff
Bryan H. Goldstein, David Goldberg, Stephen M. Paridon, Chen Quin Eric Lam, Gayatri Ranganathan, Emilie Jean‐St‐Michel, Rahul H. Rathod, Usha Krishnan, Reid C. Chamberlain, Lanier Jackson, Adam L. Ware, Jon Detterich, Salil Ginde, Peter Sassalos, Marcus S. Schamberger, Christopher J. Petit, Shabana Shahanavaz, Olukayode Garuba, Edward Woodford, Angela Weingarten, Michele Mietus‐Snyder, David A. White, Michael V. Di Maria, Colin Conner, Jason Christensen, Michael Khoury, Ja Kyoung Yoon, Carol Prospero, Victor Zak, Elaine M. Urbina

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCongenital Heart Disease Studies
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyArterial stiffnessReactive hyperemiaInternal medicinePlaceboFontan procedureVO2 maxVasodilationBlood pressureHeart rateHeart disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: In the Pediatric Heart Network double-blind Fontan Udenafil Exercise Longitudinal (FUEL) trial, treatment with udenafil (Mezzion Pharma Co Ltd) for 6 months was associated with modest improvements in exercise capacity and ventricular performance (NCT02741115). Measures of vascular function, which have been related to Fontan exercise capacity, were also obtained but have not been explored in detail. Methods: Endothelial function (Framingham reactive hyperemia index, FRHI; area under the curve to max occlusion, AUC Max ) and arterial stiffness (augmentation index, AI) were assessed with peripheral arterial tonometry. The primary outcome was the effect of udenafil vs. placebo on vascular function. Secondary outcomes included baseline, and 26-week change from baseline, measures of vascular function in subgroups of the udenafil arm, stratified by exercise response. Exercise response was defined by longitudinal change in peak oxygen consumption and categorized by 1) any positive change vs. other and 2) tertile of change. Results: Paired measures of vascular function were analyzed in 164 (82%) and 167 (84%) udenafil and placebo participants, respectively. There were no baseline differences between groups, including the use of vasoactive medications. Overall, there were no differences in change in measures of vascular function between treatment groups. In subgroup analysis, exercise responders demonstrated better baseline endothelial function (FRHI: 0.39 ± 0.37 vs. 0.29 ± 0.31, p=0.056; AUC Max : 6.53 ± 2.91 vs. 5.63 ± 2.21, p=0.023) and suggestion of a 26-week reduction in arterial stiffness (AI: -1.42 ± 10.3 vs. 1.69 ± 11.7, p=0.075). Analysis by tertile of exercise response showed that AI was significantly improved in the top tertile of exercise responders (-3.27 ± 8.4 vs. 2.62 ± 12.4 vs. 0.35 ± 11.1, p=0.022) compared with the lower tertiles. Conclusions: In the FUEL trial, treatment with udenafil was not associated with significant changes in measures of vascular function. Udenafil-treated participants with evidence of exercise responsiveness to therapy manifest better baseline endothelial function and a significant improvement in arterial stiffness. Vascular function may play a role in PDE-5 responsiveness in Fontan circulation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCongenital Heart Disease Studies→French-language works237,207→