MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384626105 · doi:10.1002/ehf2.14346

Haemodynamic Forces Predicting Remodelling and Outcome in Patients with Heart Failure Treated with Sacubitril/Valsartan

2023· article· en· W4384626105 on OpenAlexaff
Iacopo Fabiani, Nicola Riccardo Pugliese, Gianni Pedrizzetti, Giovanni Tonti, Vincenzo Castiglione, Vladislav Chubuchny, Claudia Taddei, Alessia Gimelli, Lavinia Del Punta, Alessio Balletti, Annamaria Del Franco, Stefano Masi, Carlo Lombardi, Matteo Cameli, Michele Emdin, Alberto Giannoni

Bibliographic record

VenueESC Heart Failure · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsSurgical Specialties (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEjection fractionSacubitrilInternal medicineCardiologySacubitril, ValsartanHeart failureValsartanReceiver operating characteristicNatriuretic peptideConfidence intervalAtrial fibrillationClinical endpointArea under the curveBlood pressureClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: A novel tool for the evaluation of left ventricular (LV) systo-diastolic function through echo-derived haemodynamic forces (HDFs) has been recently proposed. The present study aimed to assess the predictive value of HDFs on (i) 6 month treatment response to sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients and (ii) cardiovascular events. METHODS AND RESULTS: Eighty-nine consecutive HFrEF patients [70% males, 65 ± 9 years, LV ejection fraction (LVEF) 27 ± 7%] initiating sacubitril/valsartan underwent clinical, laboratory, ultrasound and cardiopulmonary exercise testing evaluations. Patients experiencing no adverse events and showing ≥50% reduction in plasma N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and/or ≥10% LVEF increase over 6 months were considered responders. Patients were followed up for the composite endpoint of HF-related hospitalisation, atrial fibrillation and cardiovascular death. Forty-five (51%) patients were responders. Among baseline variables, only HDF-derived whole cardiac cycle LV strength (wLVS) was higher in responders (4.4 ± 1.3 vs. 3.6 ± 1.2; p = 0.01). wLVS was also the only independent predictor of sacubitril/valsartan response at multivariable logistic regression analysis [odds ratio 1.36; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.10-1.67], with good accuracy at receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis [optimal cutpoint: ≥3.7%; area under the curve (AUC) = 0.736]. During a 33 month (23-41) median follow-up, a wLVS increase after 6 months (ΔwLVS) showed a high discrimination ability at time-dependent ROC analysis (optimal cut-off: ≥0.5%; AUC = 0.811), stratified prognosis (log-rank p < 0.0001) and remained an independent predictor for the composite endpoint (hazard ratio 0.76; 95% CI 0.61-0.95; p < 0.01), after adjusting for clinical and instrumental variables. CONCLUSIONS: HDF analysis predicts sacubitril/valsartan response and might optimise decision-making in HFrEF patients.

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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.851

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueESC Heart FailureSame topicCardiovascular Function and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207