Pulmonary vasodilator therapies in pulmonary arterial hypertension associated with CHD: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The optimal treatment strategy using pulmonary vasodilators in pulmonary arterial hypertension associated with CHD (PAH-CHD) remains controversial. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of pulmonary vasodilators in PAH-CHD. PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched through May 2022 and a network meta-analysis was conducted. The primary outcomes were mean difference of changes in 6-minute walk distance, NYHA functional class, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide. The secondary outcomes included pulmonary vascular resistance, mean pulmonary arterial pressure, and resting oxygen saturation. We identified 14 studies, yielding 807 patients with PAH-CHD. Bosentan and sildenafil were associated with a significant increase in 6-minute walk distance from baseline compared with placebo (MD 48.92 m, 95% CI 0.32 to 97.55 and MD 59.70 m, 95% CI 0.88 to 118.53, respectively). Bosentan, sildenafil, and combination of bosentan and sildenafil were associated with significant improvement in NYHA functional class compared with placebo (MD -0.33, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.14, MD -0.58, 95% CI -0.75 to -0.22 and MD -0.62, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.31, respectively). Bosentan and sildenafil were also associated with significant improvements in secondary outcomes. These findings were largely confirmed in the subgroup analysis. Various adverse events were reported; however, serious adverse event rates were relatively low (4.8-8.7%), including right heart failure, acute kidney injury, respiratory failure, hypotension, and discontinuation of pulmonary vasodilators. In conclusion, bosentan and sildenafil were the most effective in improving prognostic risk factor such as 6-minute walk distance and NYHA class. Overall, pulmonary vasodilators were well tolerated in PAH-CHD.
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 | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".