Clinical Profiles and Outcomes of Heart Failure in Five African Countries: Results from INTER-CHF Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: A wide knowledge gap exists on the clinical profiles and outcomes of heart failure (HF) in sub-Saharan Africa. Objectives: To determine the clinical profiles and outcomes of HF patients from five African countries. Methods: The INTERnational Congestive Heart Failure Study (INTER-CHF) is a prospective, multicenter cohort study. A total of 1,294 HF patients were consecutively recruited from Nigeria (383 patients), South Africa (169 patients), Sudan (501 patients), Uganda (151patients), and Mozambique (90 patients). HF was defined according to the Boston criteria for diagnosis. Cognitive function was assessed using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) score. Results: Of the 1294 patients, 51.4% were recruited as out-patients, 53.7% had HF with reduced ejection fraction (EF), 30.1% had HF with mid-range EF and 16.2% had HF with preserved EF (16.2%). The commonest etiologies of HF were hypertensive heart disease (35%) and ischemic heart disease (20%). The mean MoCA score was highest in Uganda (24.3 ± 1.1) and lowest in Sudan (13.6 ± 0.3). Prescriptions for guideline-recommended HF therapies were poor; only 1.2% of South African patients received an Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator, and none of the patients received Cardiac Resynchronised Therapy. The composite outcome of death or HF hospitalization at one year among the patients was highest in Sudan (59.7%) and lowest in Mozambique (21.1%). Six variables were associated with higher mortality risk, while digoxin use (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.49-0.97; p = 0.034) and 10mmHg unit increase in systolic blood pressure (aHR 0.86; 95%CI 0.81-0.93; p < 0.001) were associated with lower risk for mortality. Conclusions: This is the largest HF study in Africa that included in- and out-patients from the West, East, North, Central and South African sub-regions. Clinically relevant differences, including cognitive functional impairment, were found between the involved countries.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".