MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A novel algorithm for rapid sequence optimization of guideline directed medical therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

2022· article· en· W4306251303 on OpenAlexaff
A. Shekhar Pandey, A Bonsignore, Arjun Pandey, I. Bonvanie, Subodh Verma

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of GuelphCambridge Cardiac Care CentreUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEjection fractionGuidelineHeart failureInternal medicineAngiotensin Receptor BlockersCardiologyAlgorithmAngiotensin-converting enzymeBlood pressurePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Current guidelines for management of Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction (HFrEF) recommend Beta-blockers, Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitors (ARNI), Mineralocorticoid Receptor Antagonists (MRA) and SGLT2 inhibitors. However, guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMT) remain underutilized. The 2018 CHAMP-HF registry of HFrEF patients demonstrated that only 1% of patients were treated with target doses of Beta-blockers, MRA and ACE-inhibitors (ACE-I) and Angiotensin Receptor Blocker (ARB) or ARNI. Historically, HFrEF therapies were initiated and up-titrated sequentially. Recent expert commentary has suggested a more aggressive approach of initiating all 4 classes of therapy at low doses after which patients should be up-titrated to target dose Purpose This study tested a novel, virtual HFrEF optimization program with the goal of achieving GDMT using a novel “rapid sequence” algorithm. Methods We conducted a single center study at a regional cardiovascular centre using a prospective pre-post design. NYHA class II/III HFrEF patients referred from both inpatient and outpatient settings were enrolled in a virtual 3-month HFrEF optimization program. All participants underwent an initial consult with a program nurse and cardiologist. After this, all patients were seen remotely by a nurse every two weeks for adjustment of HFrEF medications. At week 1, patients started on ARNI and SGLT2i. After week 3, Beta-Blocker was initiated. After week 5, MRA was initiated. Following this, medications were up-titrated every two weeks, based on clinical judgement of the overseeing cardiologist. Vital signs and bloodwork were obtained after all medication adjustments. In addition, all patients were seen once weekly by a kinesiologist for lifestyle optimization and counselling. Results From April 2020 to January 2021, 297 NYHA class II/III HFrEF patients enrolled in the virtual HFrEF optimization program. Mean age was 69 and 63% were male. Mean ejection fraction was 28% and 54% had ischemic cardiomyopathy. At intake, the proportion of patients prescribed maximally-tolerated dosage was 64% for Beta-Blockers, 7% for MRA, 1% for ARNI and 1% for SGLT2i. At 3-month follow-up, maximally-tolerated dose was prescribed in 84% of patients for beta-blockers (p<0.01), 58% for MRA (p<0.01), 77% for SGLT2i (p<0.01) and 96% for ARNI (p<0.01). 39% of patients achieved maximal doses of all 4 classes of medications at follow-up. No medication-related adverse events were reported and 18 patients were hospitalized for HF exacerbation during study follow-up. Conclusions This study demonstrates that a program using aggressive GDMT initiation can safely and effectively improve uptake of therapy in HFrEF patients. Future research should examine HFrEF “rapid sequence” optimization on patient outcomes in a randomized setting. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicHeart Failure Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→