MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 14399: Development of Heart Failure in High-Risk Post-Myocardial Infarction Patients: An Analysis of the Paradise-MI Trial

2023· article· en· W4389958176 on OpenAlexaff
Peter VanDer Meer, Eugene Braunwald, Marc A. Pfeffer, Christopher B. Granger, Lars Køber, Eldrin F. Lewis, Aldo Pietro P Maggioni, Douglas L. Mann, John J.V. McMurray, Jean L. Rouleau, Scott D. Solomon, Philippe Gabríel Steg, Karola Jering, Gerald A Berry, Alberto Fernández, Brian Claggett

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineMyocardial infarctionHeart failureValsartanCardiologyEjection fractionRamiprilHazard ratioSacubitril, ValsartanSacubitrilACE inhibitorAngiotensin-converting enzymeBlood pressureConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: The aims of this study were i) to examine the incidence, risk factors and subsequent mortality after high-risk acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and ii) compare the effects of sacubitril/valsartan with the ACE inhibitor ramipril across heart failure (HF) risk categories. Background: The contemporary risk of developing HF following AMI in the coronary reperfusion era is not well documented. Methods: We analyzed the 5661 patients enrolled in the PARADISE-MI trial which compared sacubitril-valsartan to ramipril after AMI. Patients were required to have acute pulmonary congestion and/or left ventricular systolic dysfunction at the time of AMI, but no history of HF. We analyzed a composite outcome of first occurrence of investigator-reported HF hospitalization or outpatient development of HF. Results: During a median follow up of 22 months, 734 patients (13%) developed a first episode of HF, of which 496 (68%) were a hospitalization and 238 (32%) an outpatient HF episode. Only 74 patients (10%) experienced another AMI prior to developing HF. Independent predictors for the development of HF were a lower baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), pulmonary congestion, diabetes, older age, higher heart rate, previous MI, and renal dysfunction. A risk-score showed an exponential increased risk of developing HF with a higher score (Figure 1). The relative effect of sacubitril/valsartan compared to ramipril was similar across the HF risk spectrum (p-value for interaction=0.14). The hazard ratio for cardiovascular mortality after outpatient development of HF (in comparison to no event) was 3.9 (95% CI 2.5-6.2) and after an HF hospitalization was 10.0 (95% CI 7.8-12.8). Conclusion: New onset HF after high-risk AMI was common and resulted in a 10-fold higher cardiovascular mortality than no HF. Sacubitril/valsartan, compared to ramipril, showed similar efficacy across the HF risk spectrum.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicHeart Failure Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→