MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391483192 · doi:10.1002/ejhf.3134

Effect of a Transitional Care Model Following Hospitalization for Heart Failure: 3-Year Outcomes of the Patient-Centered Care Transitions in Heart Failure (PACT-HF) Randomized Controlled Trial

2024· article· en· W4391483192 on OpenAlexafffund
Tauben Averbuch, Shun Fu Lee, Brandon Zagorski, Alexandre Mebazaa, Gregg C. Fonarow, Lehana Thabane, Harriette G.C. Van Spall

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Heart Failure · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonInstitute for Work & HealthInstitute of Health Services and Policy ResearchUniversity of TorontoPopulation Health Research InstituteImpactUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchRoche DiagnosticsOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureHazard ratioRandomized controlled trialTransitional careConfidence intervalEmergency departmentRelative riskEmergency medicineInternal medicinePhysical therapyHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: Patients are at high risk of death or readmission following hospitalization for heart failure (HF). We tested the effect of a transitional care model that included month-long nurse-led home visits and long-term heart function clinic visits - with services titrated to estimated risk of clinical events - on 3-year outcomes following hospitalization. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a pragmatic, stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial, 10 hospitals were randomized to the intervention versus usual care. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death, readmission, or emergency department (ED) visit. Secondary outcomes included components of the primary composite outcomes, HF readmissions and healthcare resource utilization. There were 2494 patients (50.4% female) with mean age of 77.7 years. The primary outcome was reached in 1040 (94.2%) patients in the intervention and 1314 (94.5%) in the usual care group at 3 years. The intervention did not reduce the risk of the primary composite outcome (hazard ratio [HR] 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.81-1.05) nor the component outcomes overall, although numerically reduced the risk of ED visits in women but not men (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63-1.00 vs. HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80-1.19; sex-treatment interaction p = 0.23). The uptake of guideline-directed medical therapy was no different with the intervention than with usual care, with the exception of sacubitril/valsartan, which increased with the intervention (3.3% vs 1.5%; relative risk 6.2, 95% CI 1.92-20.06). CONCLUSIONS: More than 9 of 10 patients hospitalized for HF experienced all-cause death, readmission, or ED visit at 3 years. A transitional care model with services titrated to risk did not improve the composite of these endpoints, likely because there were no major differences in uptake of medical therapies between the groups. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02112227.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.258
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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations22
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Heart FailureSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207