MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4388600825 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehad655.987

The impact of outpatient pharmacological optimization on echocardiographic parameters in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

2023· article· en· W4388600825 on OpenAlexaffabout
A. Shekhar Pandey, Linn K. Kuehl, Ajit Kumar Pandey, Ian Bonavie, Amit Shankar Singh, Subodh Verma

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of GuelphCambridge Cardiac Care CentreUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEjection fractionHeart failureCardiologyInternal medicineOutpatient clinicDosingSacubitrilGuideline

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The 2022 landmark STRONG-HF study demonstrated that aggressive uptitration of guideline directed medical therapy (GDMT) in patients recently hospitalized for heart failure leads to a reduction in the composite endpoint of heart failure hospitalization and mortality. However, the impact of optimization of GDMT on echocardiographic parameters in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is unknown. Purpose This goal of this study was to determine the impact of a virtual HFrEF optimization program for achieving GDMT uptake and its impacts of echocardiographic parameters. Methods We conducted a single center study at a Canadian community cardiovascular centre using a prospective pre-post design. NYHA class II/III HFrEF patients referred from inpatient and outpatient settings were enrolled in our virtual 3-month HFrEF optimization program. All participants underwent an initial consult with a nurse and cardiologist. After this, all patients were seen remotely by a nurse every two weeks for adjustment of HFrEF medications with the goal of maximally tolerated GDMT dosing within 3 months was. Transthoracic echocardiograms were performed prior to participation in the program & after completion. Results Over 9 months, 284 NYHA class II/III HFrEF patients enrolled in the virtual HFrEF optimization program. Mean age was 67 and 70% were male. Mean ejection fraction was 34% and 54% had New York Heart Association Class II symptoms. At intake, the proportion of patients prescribed each class of GDMT was: 69% for Beta-blockers, 23% for Mineralocorticoid Receptor Inhibitors (MRA), 16% for Valsartan-Sacubitril and 7% for SGLT2 inhibitors. At 3-month follow-up, rates of GDMT prescription were improved: 90% for beta-blockers (p<0.01), 71% for MRA (p<0.01), 95% for ARNI (p<0.01) and 79% for SGLT2i (p<0.01). From baseline to follow-up echocardiogram, mean Left Ventricular End Diastolic Diameter improved from 5.51 to 5.13 cm (p<0.01). Mean Left Ventricular End Systolic Diameter improved from 4.33 to 3.75 cm (p<0.01). Mean Left Ventricular Mass Index was improved from 112.5 to 102.5 g/m2 (p<0.01). Mean Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction improved 34.4% to 49.8% (p<0.01). No hospitalizations due to medication-related adverse events were reported and 18 patients were hospitalized for HF exacerbation during study follow-up. Mean serum creatinine increased from 97.4 to 104.5 µmol/L (p<0.01); mean serum potassium increased from 4.48 to 4.58 (p<0.01). Conclusions This study demonstrates that a virtual program for GDMT optimization can safely and rapidly promote uptake of therapy in HFrEF patients. Furthermore, medical optimization was associated with significant reductions in left ventricular size, mass and ejection fraction. This provides a structural explanation for reductions in morbidity and mortality seen in STRONG-HF. Future studies should examine the effect of similar interventions on patient outcomes in a randomized setting.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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