MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391817165 · doi:10.1002/ehf2.14705

Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy Assessment in Heart Failure Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Mitral Valve Repair

2024· article· en· W4391817165 on OpenAlexaff
Karl‐Patrik Kresoja, Marianna Adamo, Karl‐Phillipp Rommel, Lukas Stolz, Nicole Karam, Cristina Giannini, Bruno Melica, Ralph Stephan von Bardeleben, Christian Butter, Patrick Horn, Fabien Praz, Daniel Kalbacher, Christos Iliadis, Hölger Thiele, Jörg Hausleiter, Marco Metra, Philipp Lurz

Bibliographic record

VenueESC Heart Failure · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Valve Diseases and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSurgical Specialties (Canada)
FundersUniversitätsmedizin der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität MainzJohannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz
KeywordsMedicineEjection fractionInternal medicineInterquartile rangeHazard ratioMitral regurgitationHeart failureCardiologyConfidence intervalSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: Achieving optimized guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) is recommended prior to transcatheter mitral valve edge-to-edge repair (M-TEER) for secondary mitral regurgitation (SMR). We aimed to propose and validate an easy-to-use score for assessing the quality of GDMT in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) undergoing M-TEER. METHODS AND RESULTS: Among the 1641 EuroSMR patients enrolled in the EuroSMR Registry who underwent M-TEER, a total of 1072 patients [median age 74, interquartile range (IQR) 67-79 years, 29% female] had complete data on GDMT and a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40% and were included in the current study. We proposed a GDMT score that considers the dosage levels of three medication classes (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers/angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors, beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists), with a maximum score of 12 points indicating optimal GDMT. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The median GDMT score was 4 points (IQR 3-6). All three domains of the scoring system were associated with all-cause mortality (P < 0.05 for all). The overall GDMT score was associated with all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.86-0.95 for each 1-point increase in the GDMT score). This association remained significant after adjusting for renal function and co-morbidities. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the utility of a simple GDMT scoring system for assessing the adequacy of GDMT in HFrEF patients with relevant SMR undergoing M-TEER. The GDMT score has potential applications in guiding the design of future clinical trials and aiding clinical decision-making processes.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.325 · 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.

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

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueESC Heart FailureSame topicCardiac Valve Diseases and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207