Outcomes and Healthcare Resource Utilization in Adult Congenital Heart Disease Patients with Heart Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: While heart failure (HF) is a leading cause of death in adults with congenital heart disease (ACHD), few studies report contemporary outcomes after the first HF hospitalization. We examined outcomes of ACHD patients newly admitted for HF compared with ACHD patients without HF and the general HF population without ACHD. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using population databases from a single-payer health system from 1994 to 2018, ACHD patients newly admitted for HF were matched 1:1 to ACHD patients without HF (n = 4030 matched pairs). Similarly, ACHD patients newly admitted for HF were matched 1:1 to HF patients without ACHD (n = 4336 matched pairs). Patients with ACHD and HF (median age 68 years, 45% women) experienced higher mortality in short-term [30 day adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 4.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.06, 5.43, P < 0.001], near-term (1 year HR 3.87, 95% CI 3.77, 4.92, P < 0.001), and long-term (24 year HR 1.59, 95% CI 1.13, 2.36, P = 0.008) follow-up. Patients with ACHD and HF had fewer baseline cardiovascular comorbidities than non-ACHD HF but demonstrated higher 30 day (HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.41, 1.73, P < 0.001), 1 year (HR 1.30, 95% CI 1.20, 1.40, P < 0.001), and 24 year (HR 2.40, 95% CI 1.73, 3.38, P < 0.001) mortality. Those with ACHD and HF also exhibited higher cardiovascular readmission rates at 30 days with HRs 9.15 (95% CI; 8.00, 10.48, P < 0.001) vs. ACHD without HF, and 1.71 (95% CI; 1.54, 1.85, P < 0.001) vs. HF without ACHD, and the higher readmission risk extended to 10 year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Adults with congenital heart disease patients with new HF have high risks of death and cardiovascular hospitalization, and preventative strategies to improve outcomes are urgently needed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".