MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3107064316 · doi:10.1161/jaha.120.018827

Spironolactone Use and Improved Outcomes in Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction With Resistant Hypertension

2020· article· en· W3107064316 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tetsuro Tsujimoto, Hiroshi Kajio

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHormonal Regulation and Hypertension
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpironolactoneMedicineHeart failureInternal medicineHazard ratioCardiologyHeart failure with preserved ejection fractionEjection fractionBlood pressureAldosteroneCalcium channel blockerDiureticConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Resistant hypertension is a salt‐retaining condition possibly attributable to inappropriate aldosterone secretion. Methods and Results This study was a secondary analysis of the TOPCAT (Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure With an Aldosterone Antagonist) trial. Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) with (n=1004) and without (n=2437) resistant hypertension were included. Resistant hypertension was defined as systolic blood pressure ≥130 mm Hg and/or diastolic blood pressure ≥80 mm Hg in a patient with hypertension, despite the concurrent use of a renin‐angiotensin system blocker (angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker), a calcium channel blocker, and a diuretic; or as those patients using ≥4 classes of antihypertensive medication. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, aborted cardiac arrest, or heart failure hospitalization. We analyzed hazard ratios (HRs) for outcomes with 95% CIs in the spironolactone group and compared them with the placebo group using Cox proportional hazard models. The risk of primary outcome events in patients with HFpEF with resistant hypertension was significantly lower in the spironolactone group than in the placebo group (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.53–0.91; P =0.009), whereas the risk of primary outcome events in patients with HFpEF without resistant hypertension was not significantly different between the 2 groups (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.83–1.20; P =0.97). There was a significant interaction between spironolactone use and resistant hypertension ( P =0.03). Similar associations were also observed in patients with HFpEF from the Americas (United States, Canada, Brazil, and Argentina) only. Conclusions Spironolactone may be an effective add‐on medication for patients with HFpEF with resistant hypertension taking angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, calcium channel blockers, and diuretics.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations46
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart AssociationSame topicHormonal Regulation and HypertensionFrench-language works237,207