Cardiac Reverse Remodelling and Health Status in Patients with Chronic Heart Failure
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This study aims to assess long-term changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) together with echocardiographic markers of cardiac remodelling and their association with prognosis and patient-reported quality of life (QoL). METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of serial echocardiograms performed between January 2009 and December 2019 in 1089 patients (median age 63 years, 71.0% men) enrolled in the Mazankowski Heart Function Clinic Registry who had at least two echocardiograms separated by ≥12 months. We classified the patients into four subgroups by their baseline and LVEF trajectories: persistent heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (persistent HFrEF, n = 364), recovered ejection fraction (HFrecEF, n = 325), transient recovery in ejection fraction (HFtrecEF, n = 117), and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF, n = 283); 4490 echocardiograms were included in the present analysis, with 4.1 ± 1.8 echocardiograms available per patient during follow-up. Reductions in echocardiographic markers of cardiac remodelling, including LVIDd [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 2.22, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.75-2.86], LVIDs (aOR: 2.44, 95% CI 2.00-2.94), left ventricular mass index (aOR: 1.15, 95% CI 1.09-1.22), E/e' ratio (aOR: 1.15, 95% CI 1.02-1.30), left atrial volume index (aOR: 1.10, 95% CI 1.03-1.16), along with an increase in the maximum recommended daily dose of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (aOR: 1.04, 95% CI 1.01-1.07) and mineralocorticoid-receptor antagonists (aOR: 1.06, 95% CI 1.01-1.11) at 2 years, strongly predicted the HFrecEF classification, which was further sustained at 5 years of follow-up. However, changes in these parameters were mostly absent in patients experiencing only a transient recovery in LVEF (HFtrecEF), closely resembling patients with persistent HFrEF. In the multivariable analysis, HFrecEF patients had lower risk of all-cause mortality alone [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 0.46, 95% CI 0.23-0.93], and composite all-cause (aHR: 0.59, 95% CI 0.49-0.73), cardiovascular (aHR: 0.47, 95% CI 0.36-0.61), and heart failure (aHR: 0.50, 95% CI 0.35-0.70) related hospitalizations with mortality than patients with persistent HFrEF. QoL assessed through the shortened Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 at the end of follow-up was greater in patients with HFrecEF by 5.2, 12.4, and 9.4 points than persistent HFrEF, HFtrecEF, and HFpEF, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with HFrecEF experienced progressive normalization in echocardiographic markers of cardiac remodelling characterized by reductions in left ventricular dimensions and mass in tandem with reductions in left atrial volume and E/e' ratio, which is associated with better prognosis and QoL.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it