MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3202919277 · doi:10.1186/s12933-021-01390-8

Impact of empagliflozin on right ventricular parameters and function among patients with type 2 diabetes

2021· article· en· W3202919277 on OpenAlexaff
Bradley Sarak, Subodh Verma, C. David Mazer, Hwee Teoh, Adrian Quan, Richard E. Gilbert, Shaun G. Goodman, Karan Bami, Otávio R. Coelho‐Filho, Vineeta Ahooja, Djeven P. Deva, Vinay Garg, Sumeet Gandhi, Kim A. Connelly, Andrew T. Yan

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiovascular Diabetology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsOntario Tobacco Research UnitTrillium Health CentreUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersBoehringer Ingelheim
KeywordsEmpagliflozinMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineAngiologyEjection fractionPlaceboStroke volumeDiabetes mellitusCoronary artery diseaseType 2 Diabetes MellitusEndocrinologyHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibition reduces cardiovascular events in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) and is associated with a reduction in left ventricular (LV) mass index. However, the impact on right ventricular (RV) remodeling is unknown. Accordingly, the objective of this study was to assess the impact of SGLT2 inhibition on RV parameters and function in T2DM and coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods In EMPA-HEART CardioLink-6, 97 patients with T2DM and CAD were randomly assigned to empagliflozin 10 mg (n = 49) once daily or placebo (n = 48). Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging was performed at baseline and after 6 months. RV mass index (RVMi), RV end-diastolic and end-systolic volume index (RVEDVi, RVESVi) and RV ejection fraction (RVEF) were assessed in blinded fashion. Results At baseline, mean RVMi (± SD) (11.8 ± 2.4 g/m 2 ), RVEF (53.5 ± 4.8%), RVEDVi (64.3 ± 13.2 mL/m 2 ) and RVESVi (29.9 ± 6.9 mL/m 2 ) were within normal limits and were similar between the empagliflozin and placebo groups. Over 6 months, there were no significant differences in RVMi (− 0.11 g/m 2 , [95% CI − 0.81 to 0.60], p = 0.76), RVEF (0.54%, [95% CI − 1.4 to 2.4], p = 0.58), RVEDVi (− 1.2 mL/m 2 , [95% CI − 4.1 to 1.7], p = 0.41) and RVESVi (− 0.81 mL/m 2 , [95% CI − 2.5 to 0.90], p = 0.35) in the empaglifozin group as compared with the placebo group. In both groups, there was no significant correlation between RVMi and LVMi changes from baseline to 6 months. Conclusions In this post-hoc analysis, SGLT2 inhibition with empagliflozin had no impact on RVMi and RV volumes in patients with T2DM and CAD. The potentially differential effect of empagliflozin on the LV and RV warrants further investigation. Clinical Trial Registration : URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02998970?cond=NCT02998970&draw=2&rank=1 . Unique identifier: NCT02998970.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.601

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiovascular DiabetologySame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207