Better Respiratory Function in Heart Failure Patients With Use of Central-Acting Therapeutics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Diaphragm atrophy can contribute to dyspnea in patients with heart failure (HF) with its link to central neurohormonal overactivation. HF medications that cross the blood-brain barrier could act centrally and improve respiratory function, potentially alleviating diaphragmatic atrophy. Therefore, we compared the benefit of central- vs peripheral-acting HF drugs on respiratory function, as assessed by a single cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) and outcomes in HF patients. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted of 624 ambulatory adult HF patients (80% male) with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40% and a complete CPET, followed at a single institution between 2001 and 2017. CPET parameters, and the outcomes all-cause death, a composite endpoint (all-cause death, need for left ventricular assist device, heart transplantation), and all-cause and/or HF hospitalizations, were compared in patients receiving central-acting (n = 550) vs peripheral-acting (n = 74) drugs. Results: = 0.044), although significance after multivariant correction was not achieved, despite the hazard ratio being 0.664 and 0.757, respectively. Conclusions: Central-acting drugs were associated with better respiratory function as measured by CPET parameters in HF patients. This could extend to clinically meaningful composite outcomes and hospitalizations but required more power to be definitive in linking to drug effect. Central-acting HF drugs show a role in mitigating diaphragm weakness.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".