Abstract 12982: Underutilization of Intravenous Iron in a Contemporary Population of Ambulatory Heart Failure Patients in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Intravenous iron has been shown to improve quality of life and exercise capacity in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) with iron deficiency anemia. We undertook this study to understand the utilization rates of IV iron in a Canadian heart function clinic. Methods: This retrospective analysis was carried out on all heart failure (HF) patients referred to a tertiary care Heart Function Clinic (HFC) who would have been eligible for intravenous iron therapy from January 2020 until December 2022. Our inclusion and exclusion criteria were based on the FAIR HF trial. Inclusion criteria was left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of ≤40% for patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II or ≤45% for NYHA class III, hemoglobin level of 95 to 135 g/L and iron deficiency. The data and decision to recommend IV iron was based on initial HFC consultation and pre-appointment investigations. Results: Out of 1360 charts reviewed, 920 patients had a complete data set in order to determine eligibility. Of those, 127 (13.8%) met IV iron eligibility criteria as per the FAIR HF trial. Of those eligible, 64.6% were male, 98.4% had HFrEF and 1.6% had heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) (p<0.001). The mean LVEF for those meeting criteria for IV iron was 28.3±7.6% vs 36.1±13.7% for those ineligible (p<0.001). Mean NYHA class for those meeting criteria for IV iron was 2.3±0.5 vs 2.1±0.7 for those ineligible (p<0.001). Only 3 (2.4%) of the eligible patients were recommended or received IV iron, while 2 (1.6%) others had received IV iron prior to HFC visit (Fig). There were no significant differences in the proportion of patients receiving optimal quadruple therapy HF management between both cohorts (p=0.07). Conclusion: Our study demonstrates a significant underutilization of IV iron administration in eligible HFC patients, presenting many missed opportunities to improve patient quality of life.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".