MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112615262 · doi:10.1161/jaha.119.015752

Ultrafiltration in Acute Heart Failure: Implications of Ejection Fraction and Early Response to Treatment From CARRESS‐HF

2020· article· en· W3112615262 on OpenAlexaff
Marat Fudim, Jeremy Brooksbank, Anna Giczewska, Stephen J. Greene, Justin L. Grodin, Pieter Martens, Jozine M. ter Maaten, Abhinav Sharma, Frederik H. Verbrugge, Hrishikesh Chakraborty, Bradley A. Bart, Javed Butler, Adrian F. Hernandez, G. Michael Felker, Robert J. Mentz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsEjection fractionUltrafiltration (renal)Heart failureCardiologyInternal medicineMedicineFraction (chemistry)ChemistryChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Ultrafiltration is not commonly used because of higher incidence of worsening renal function without improved decongestion. We examined differential outcomes of high versus low fluid removal and preserved versus reduced ejection fraction (EF) in CARRESS‐HF (Cardiorenal Rescue Study in Acute Decompensated Heart Failure). Methods and Results Baseline characteristics in the ultrafiltration arm were compared according to 24‐hour ultrafiltration‐based fluid removal above versus below the median. Patients were stratified by EF (≤40% or >40%). We compared clinical parameters of clinical decongestion during the hospitalization based on initial (≤24 hours) response to ultrafiltration. Cox‐proportional hazards models were used to identify associations between fluid removal <24 hours and composite of death, hospitalization, or unscheduled outpatient/emergency department visit during study follow‐up. The intention‐to‐treat analysis included 93 patients. Within 24 hours, median fluid removal was 1.89 L (Q1, Q3: 1.22, 3.16). The high fluid removal group had a greater urine output (9.08 versus 6.23 L, P =0.027) after 96 hours. Creatinine change from baseline to 96 hours was similar in both groups (0.10 mg/dL increase, P =0.610). The EF >40% group demonstrated larger increases of change in creatinine ( P =0.023) and aldosterone ( P =0.038) from baseline to 96 hours. Among patients with EF >40%, those with above median fluid removal (n=17) when compared with below median (n=17) had an increased rate of the combined end point (87.5% versus 47.1%, P =0.014). Conclusions In patients with acute heart failure, higher initial fluid removal with ultrafiltration had no association with worsening renal function. In patients with EF >40%, ultrafiltration was associated with worsening renal function irrespective of fluid removal rate and higher initial fluid removal was associated with higher rates of adverse clinical outcomes, highlighting variable responses to decongestive therapy.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.291
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations19
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart AssociationSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207