MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4368356880 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehad236

Pre-treatment bicarbonate levels and decongestion by acetazolamide: the ADVOR trial

2023· article· en· W4368356880 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Pieter Martens, Frederik H. Verbrugge, Jeroen Dauw, Petra Nijst, Evelyne Meekers, Silvio Nunes Augusto, Jozine M. ter Maaten, Line Heylen, Kevin Damman, Alexandre Mebazaa, Gerasimos Filippatos, Frank Ruschitzka, W.H. Wilson Tang, Matthias Dupont, Wilfried Müllens

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRelypsaNational Institutes of HealthServierBiosense WebsterBelgian Health Care Knowledge CentreNovo NordiskUniversität ZürichFonds Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekHamilton Health SciencesMundipharma Medical Company, BaselEuropean CommissionInselspital, Universitätsspital BernBoston Scientific CorporationCardinal HealthAmgenEdwards LifesciencesKiniksa PharmaceuticalsBrigham and Women's HospitalSanofiVifor PharmaPfizerZOLL Medical CorporationAstraZenecaBelgian American Educational Foundation
KeywordsAcetazolamideMedicineClinical endpointDiureticPlaceboBicarbonateRandomized controlled trialRandomizationSodium bicarbonateAnesthesiaInternal medicineUrologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: Acetazolamide inhibits proximal tubular sodium and bicarbonate re-absorption and improved decongestive response in acute heart failure in the ADVOR trial. It is unknown whether bicarbonate levels alter the decongestive response to acetazolamide. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is a sub-analysis of the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled ADVOR trial that randomized 519 patients with acute heart failure and volume overload in a 1:1 ratio to intravenous acetazolamide (500 mg/day) or matching placebo on top of standardized intravenous loop diuretics (dose equivalent of twice oral maintenance dose). The primary endpoint was complete decongestion after 3 days of treatment (morning of day 4). Impact of baseline HCO3 levels on the treatment effect of acetazolamide was assessed. : Of the 519 enrolled patients, 516 (99.4%) had a baseline HCO3 measurement. Continuous HCO3 modelling illustrated a higher proportional treatment effect for acetazolamide if baseline HCO3 ≥ 27 mmol/l. A total of 234 (45%) had a baseline HCO3 ≥ 27 mmol/l. Randomization towards acetazolamide improved decongestive response over the entire range of baseline HCO3- levels (P = 0.004); however, patients with elevated baseline HCO3 exhibited a significant higher response to acetazolamide [primary endpoint: no vs. elevated HCO3; OR 1.37 (0.79-2.37) vs. OR 2.39 (1.35-4.22), P-interaction = 0.065), with higher proportional diuretic and natriuretic response (both P-interaction < 0.001), greater reduction in congestion score on consecutive days (treatment × time by HCO3-interaction <0.001) and length of stay (P-interaction = 0.019). The larger proportional treatment effect was mainly explained by the development of diminished decongestive response in the placebo arm (loop diuretics only), both with regard to reaching the primary endpoint of decongestion as well as reduction in congestion score. Development of elevated HCO3 further worsened decongestive response in the placebo arm (P-interaction = 0.041). A loop diuretic only strategy was associated with an increase in the HCO3 during the treatment phase which was prevented by acetazolamide (day 3: placebo 74.8% vs. acetazolamide 41.3%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Acetazolamide improves decongestive response over the entire range of HCO3- levels; however, the treatment response is magnified in patients with baseline or loop diuretic-induced elevated HCO3 (marker of proximal nephron NaHCO3 retention) by specifically counteracting this component of diuretic resistance.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations51
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207