MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388714466 · doi:10.1002/ehf2.14576

Calcium Channel Blockers and Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Continuous-Flow Left Ventricular Assist Devices

2023· article· en· W4388714466 on OpenAlexaff
Hongtao Tie, Zhenhan Li, Henryk Welp, Avirup Guha, César Caraballo, Heinz Deschka, Rui Shi, Xiaoqing Zheng, Sven Martens, Jürgen Sindermann, Dan Chen, Qingchen Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueESC Heart Failure · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsCentre for Advancing Health Outcomes
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteCentre Scientifique et Technique du BâtimentNatural Science Foundation of ChongqingChongqing Medical UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioVentricular assist deviceInternal medicineConfidence intervalProportional hazards modelConfoundingHeart failureCardiologyRetrospective cohort studySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: Current guidelines suggest calcium channel blockers (CCBs) as the second or third option for blood pressure management in patients with left ventricular assist device (LVAD). However, the clinical outcomes of patients with LVAD who receive CCBs remain unclear. Our study aims to analyse the association of CCBs with clinical outcomes in patients after LVAD implantation. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is a retrospective analysis based on the Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) from 2006 to 2017, and adult patients who were alive with LVAD and CCB treatment information at 6 months after implantation were included. Among 10 717 patients, 1369 received CCBs 6 months after implantation, and there was an increasing trend of CCB use after LVAD. Patients receiving CCB therapy at 6 months had a similar 5 year survival rate to those not receiving CCB [49.6%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 47.5-51.7% vs. 51.1%, 95% CI: 45.3-56.7%]. In both Cox and competing risk regressions after adjusting for confounding factors, CCB treatment at 6 months after implantation was not associated with long-term mortality [hazard ratio (HR): 1.03, 95% CI: 0.91-1.17, P = 0.624 and subdistribution HR (SHR): 1.07, 95% CI: 0.95-1.22, P = 0.260]. Consistently, in time-varying models, CCB treatment was not linked to long-term mortality (HR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.87-1.09, P = 0.682 and SHR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.94-1.18, P = 0.359). This null association remained in subgroup analysis according to device strategy and propensity-matching analyses. Neurological dysfunction, stroke, bleeding, rehospitalization, and renal dysfunction were more likely to occur among those with CCB when compared with those without CCB treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with LVAD, CCB therapy fails to show benefits in long-term survival and is associated with increased incidences of neurological dysfunction, bleeding, renal dysfunction, and rehospitalization.

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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.824

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueESC Heart FailureSame topicMechanical Circulatory Support DevicesFrench-language works237,207