Trial of Oral Diuretics Prior to Discharge Is Not Associated With Improved Outcomes in Decompensated Heart Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Current heart failure guidelines recommend transition of intravenous (IV) diuretics to oral > 24 h prior to hospital discharge. The aim of this study was to determine whether transition to oral diuretics prior to discharge in patients hospitalized with decompensated systolic heart failure (SHF) was associated with improved 30-day events. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study, in which adults admitted to the Loma Linda Medical Center for 3 - 14 days with a primary discharge diagnosis of acute on chronic SHF were included. Mortality data were obtained from the National Death Index, while readmission only to our facility was included. The t -test and Chi-square test were used for analyses. Results: A total of 314 patients were studied. Patients who were managed with guideline-recommended trial of oral diuretics, and patients who continued to receive IV diuretics on the last full hospital day were overall similar in baseline characteristics. Patients who received oral diuretics on the day prior to discharge had longer length of stay, less weight loss, were discharged on lower diuretic doses (all P < 0.05), and had similar outcomes of 30-day readmission and 30-day hospitalization-free survival. Conclusions: The transition to oral diuretics prior to discharge in patients with decompensated SHF was not associated with improved 30-day outcomes. These results require validation in prospective trials but suggest that guideline recommendations regarding transitioning to oral diuretics prior to discharge may deserve re-evaluation. Cardiol Res. 2021;12(4):244-250 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/cr1265
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".