MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4396989529 · doi:10.1681/asn.20223311s1220d

The Association of Ejection Fraction With Cardiac Arrest and Myocardial Infarction Differs by eGFR

2022· article· en· W4396989529 on OpenAlexaff
Katherine Scovner Ravi, Thomas A. Mavrakanas, Aisha Khattak, Karandeep Singh, David M. Charytan, Finnian R. McCausland

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEjection fractionCardiologyInternal medicineMyocardial infarctionMedicineHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) and left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction are potent risk factors for cardiovascular events. Here we explore if the association of LV ejection fraction (EF) with cardiac arrest, myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke, and all-cause mortality differs by eGFR across earlier stages of CKD. Methods: Using registry data from 2004-2014 from five Mass General Brigham hospitals, we performed an observational cohort study of 17,962 patients with eGFR 30-90mL/min/1.73m2. Cardiovascular outcomes were ascertained from ICD-9 codes. Cox regression models, incorporating an interaction term for continuous eGFR and LVEF, were fit and adjusted for age, sex, race, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, and left ventricular mass index. Results: Mean age was 67 years, and 51% were male. The mean eGFR was 66±16 mL/min/1.73m2 and LVEF 54±13%. Over a median of 0.96 (0.14-4.84) years there were 437 cardiac arrests, 4,634 MIs, 1,549 ischemic strokes, and 6,282 deaths. The association of LVEF with cardiac arrest differed according to eGFR (P-interaction <0.01). While there was no evidence of association of LVEF with cardiac arrest in the lowest quartile of eGFR (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 1.02; 95% CI 0.92-1.13), for each 5% increase in LVEF there was a 21% lower risk of cardiac arrest in the highest quartile of eGFR (aHR 0.79; 95% CI 0.66-0.94; Table). The association of LVEF with MI also decreased as eGFR declined (Table). There was no evidence of effect modification of LVEF by eGFR for ischemic stroke or mortality (P-interaction >0.3 for both). Conclusions: Among patients with eGFR 30-90mL/min/1.73m2, the association of LVEF with cardiac arrest disappears at lower (vs. higher) levels of kidney function and is less pronounced for MI at lower (vs. higher) levels of kidney function. Further research is required to elucidate what factors beyond LVEF drive these outcomes in the setting of more advanced kidney disease. Funding: NIDDK Support - Risk of cardiac arrest and myocardial infarction per each increase in left ventricular ejection fraction of 5% according to eGFR quartile Outcome eGFR (CKD-EPI, ml/min/1.72 m2) aHR (95% CI) P-Interaction Quartile 1 (30-54) N=4,598 Quartile 2 (55-68) N=4,400 Quartile 3 (69-80) N=4,671 Quartile 4 (81-90) N=4,293 Cardiac Arrest 1.02 (0.92-1.13) P=0.72 0.97 (0-86-1.10) P=0.64 0.76 (0.63-0.92) P=0.01 0.79 (0.66-0.94) P=0.01 <0.01 Myocardial Infarction 0.94 (0.91-0.98) P<0.01 0.91 (0.87-0.95) P<0.01 0.90 (0.86-0.95) P<0.01 0.83 (0.79-0.88) P<0.01 <0.01 Abbreviations. eGFR; estimated glomerular filtration rate, CKD-EPI: Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration, aHR: adjusted hazard ratio, CI: confidence interval, N: number.Cox regression model adjusted for age, gender, Black race, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, and left ventricular mass index.P-interaction reported for eGFR quartile.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.217 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology→Same topicCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors→French-language works237,207→