Right Ventricular Ejection Fraction for the Prediction of Major Adverse Cardiovascular and Heart Failure-Related Events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There is increasing evidence that right ventricular ejection fraction (RVEF) may provide incremental value to left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction for the prediction of major adverse cardiovascular events. To date, generalizable utility for RVEF quantification in patients with cardiovascular disease has not been established. Using a large prospective clinical outcomes registry, we investigated the prognostic value of RVEF for the prediction of major adverse cardiovascular events- and heart failure-related outcomes. Methods: Seven thousand one hundred thirty-one consecutive patients with known or suspected cardiovascular disease undergoing cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging were prospectively enrolled. Multichamber volumetric quantification was performed by standardized operational procedures. Patients were followed for the primary composite outcome of all-cause death, survived cardiac arrest, admission for heart failure, need for transplantation or LV assist device, acute coronary syndrome, need for revascularization, stroke, or transient ischemic attack. A secondary, heart failure focused outcome of heart failure admission, need for transplantation/LV assist device or death was also studied. Results: Mean age was 54±15 years. The mean LV ejection fraction was 55±14% (range 6%–90%) with a mean RVEF of 54±10% (range 9%–87%). At a median follow-up of 908 days, 870 (12%) patients experienced the primary composite outcome and 524 (7%) the secondary outcome. Each 10% drop in RVEF was associated with a 1.3-fold increased risk of the primary outcome ( P <0.001) and 1.5-fold increased risk of the secondary outcome ( P <0.001). RVEF was an independent predictor following comprehensive covariate adjustment, inclusive of LV ejection fraction. Patients with an RVEF<40% experienced a 3.1-fold risk of the primary outcome ( P <0.001) with a 1-year cumulative event rate of 22% versus 7% above this cutoff. Conclusions: RVEF is a powerful and independent predictor of major adverse cardiac events with broad generalizability across patients with known or suspected cardiovascular disease. These findings support migration towards biventricular phenotyping for the classification of risk in clinical practice. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT04367220.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".