Echocardiographic characterization of patients with supranormal ejection fraction: pooled core laboratory analysis of the TOPCAT and PARAGON-HF trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Patients with heart failure and supranormal ejection fraction (HFsnEF) may be phenotypically distinct from those with normal or below normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and may demonstrate different prognostic trajectories or treatment responses. Purpose To characterize clinical features, cardiac structure and function among patients with HF with preserved EF (defined as 45% ≤ LVEF ≤ 65%) and supranormal EF (defined as LVEF>65%). Methods Baseline clinical characteristics and key echocardiographic parameters from patients enrolled in the echocardiographic substudies of TOPCAT (Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure with an Aldosterone Antagonist)-Americas and PARAGON-HF (Prospective Comparison of ARNI [angiotensin receptor–neprilysin inhibitor] with ARB [angiotensin-receptor blocker] Global Outcomes in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction) were compared between patients with and without HFsnEF. Results Among 1,751 participants (mean age 73 years old, 51% women) in this pooled core laboratory analysis, 265 (15%) had HFsnEF. Participants in HFsnEF group were more likely to be women, and less likely to have prior myocardial infarction and atrial fibrillation (Table 1). Compared with those with LVEF ≤ 65%, those with LVEF > 65% had lower LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volume indices, lower LV mass index, higher LV relative wall thickness, and higher right ventricular fractional area change. LV geometry and measures of LV diastolic function were similar in both groups (Table 1). Global longitudinal strain (GLS) was abnormal (absolute GLS <16%) in 28% in those with HFsnEF compared with 53% in those with LVEF ≤ 65%. After adjusting for baseline LV ejection fraction and sex, and stratified by trial, abnormal GLS was associated with a higher risk of composite of first heart failure hospitalization or cardiovascular death (overall hazard ratio [HR] 1.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23 – 1.98, P < 0.001), cardiovascular death (overall HR 2.06, 95% CI 1.35 – 3.13, P = 0.001), and heart failure hospitalization (overall HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.15 – 1.93, P = 0.003) in both HFsnEF and non-HFsnEF groups (P-interaction > 0.05 for all, Figure 1). Conclusions Among participants in the TOPCAT-Americas and PARAGON-HF trials, those with LVEF > 65% were predominantly women, had less LV remodeling, and had better RV function based on echocardiographic measures. Nevertheless, despite supranormal LVEF, GLS was abnormal in over a quarter of patients and remained an important predictor of adverse clinical outcomes in this cohort.Table 1Figure 1
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".