MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Safety Indicators in Patients Receiving High-intensity Care After Hospital Admission for Acute Heart Failure: The STRONG-HF Trial

2023· article· en· W4387462087 on OpenAlex
Daniela Tomasoni, Beth A. Davison, Marianna Adamo, Matteo Pagnesi, Alexandre Mebazaa, Christopher Edwards, Mattia Arrigo, Marianela Barros, Jan Biegus, Jelena Čelutkienė, Kamilė Čerlinskaitė‐Bajorė, Ovidiu Chioncel, Alain Cohen‐Solal, Albertino Damasceno, Rafael Díaz, Gerasimos Filippatos, Étienne Gayat, Antoine Kimmoun, Carolyn S.P. Lam, Maria Novosadova, Peter S. Pang, Piotr Ponikowski, Hadiza Saidu, Karen Sliwa, Koji Takagi, Jozine M. ter Maaten, Adriaan A. Voors, Gad Cotter, Marco Metra

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiac Failure · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsSurgical Specialties (Canada)
FundersMedical Research CouncilServierNovo NordiskNational Medical Research CouncilCytokineticsStrongVifor PharmaPfizerLivaNovaAmgenEdwards LifesciencesAlnylam PharmaceuticalsSanofiAmerican Heart AssociationAbbott VascularAbbott LaboratoriesAstraZeneca
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureHazard ratioTolerabilityConfidence intervalNatriuretic peptideInternal medicineRenal functionGuidelineCardiologyAdverse effectHeart rateBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BackgroundSTRONG-HF demonstrated the safety and efficacy of rapid up-titration of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) with high intensity care (HIC) compared to usual care in patients hospitalized for acute heart failure (HF). In the HIC group, the following safety indicators were used to guide up-titration: estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] <30ml/min/1.73m2, serum potassium >5.0 mmol/L, systolic blood pressure (SBP) <95mmHg, heart rate <55bpm, NT-proBNP concentration >10% higher than pre-discharge values.MethodsWe examined the impact of protocol-specified safety indicators on achieved dose of GDMT and clinical outcomes.ResultsThree-hundred-thirteen of the 542 patients in the HIC arm (57.7%) met at least one safety indicator at any follow-up visit 1 to 6 weeks after discharge. As compared to those without, patients meeting at least one safety indicator had more severe HF symptoms, lower SBP and higher heart rate at baseline and achieved a lower average percentage of GDMT optimal doses (mean difference vs the HIC arm patients not reaching any safety indicator, -11.0% [95% CI -13.6 to -8.4%], P<0.001). The primary endpoint of 180-day all-cause death or HF re-admission occurred in 15.0% of patients with any safety indicator versus 14.2% of those without (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.84, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.46, P=0.540). None of each safety indicator, considered alone, was significantly associated with the primary endpoint, but SBP < 95mmHg was associated with a trend towards increased 180 days all-cause mortality (adjusted HR = 2.68 [0.94 to 7.64]; P = 0.065) and eGFR drop to < 30ml/min/1.73m2 with more HF readmissions (adjusted HR 3.60 [1.22 to 10.60]; p = 0.0203). The occurrence of a safety indicator was associated with a smaller 90-day improvement in EQ-5D VAS (adjusted mean difference -3.32 points, 95% CI -5.97 to -0.66, P=0.015).ConclusionsAmong patients with acute HF enrolled in STRONG-HF in the HIC arm, the occurrence of any safety indicator was associated with the administration of slightly lower GDMT doses and less improvement in quality of life but with no significant increase in the primary outcome of 180-day HF readmission or death when appropriately addressed according to the study protocol.

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.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.662

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.254 · 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