MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4396996865 · doi:10.1681/asn.20203110s1374d

β-Blocker Dialyzability and Adverse Cardiovascular Outcomes in Hemodialysis Patients: A Meta-Analysis

2020· article· en· W4396996865 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Abhinav Tella, William Vang, Eustacia C. Ikeri, Olivia Taylor, Alicia Zhang, Srihari Raju, Areef Ishani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisMedicineHemodialysisInternal medicineAdverse effectIntensive care medicineCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: β-blockers (BB) are one of the most common medications among hemodialysis (HD) patients. There are several BB with different pharmacokinetic properties. Particularly relevant for HD patients is BB dialyzability. In non-dialysis patients, abrupt withdrawal of BB has been associated with adverse cardiovascular events (CVE). HD patients receiving dialyzable BB may also be at increased risk for CVE. This systematic review aims to determine in HD patients if highly dialyzable BB (HDBB) (metoprolol, atenolol, and acebutolol) compared to poorly dialyzable BB (PDBB) (carvedilol, labetalol, bisoprolol, and propranolol) alters CVE and mortality. Methods: We searched MEDLINE from 1990 through February 2020 for studies of all forms. All cause mortality (ACM) and CVE were our primary outcomes. Random effects models were used to calculate pooled risk ratios (RR). Results: An initial search identified 1,066 articles. Exclusion criteria eliminated articles that did not include HD participants or did not compare at least two BB. Ultimately, three cohort studies comparing HDBB and PDBB were identified. All studies were retrospective cohort studies of large HD datasets of patients in the U.S. and Canada. The combined population size of the analyzed studies was 38,580 patients: 24,596 on HDBB and 13,984 on PDBB. There was significant heterogeneity between studies, with two suggesting harm associated with HDBB and one suggesting a reduction in mortality. The risk ratio derived from pooled data across these studies was 1.03 (95% CL: 0.88-1.22) for ACM and 0.94 (95% CL: 0.80-1.11) for CVE. Significant heterogeneity was seen with Iˆ2 values of 86% and 84% for ACM and CVE respectively. Conclusions: After a comprehensive search, only three cohort studies were identified comparing BB of different dialyzabilities. No randomized control trials were identified. The three cohort studies had varying results with two favoring HDBB and one favoring PDBB. Pooled results suggested a greater incidence of CVE in patients on PDBB compared to those on HDBB, while ACM is lower for PDBB than for HDBB. Given the heterogeneity of results it is unclear what type of BB should be used in HD patients. A randomized controlled trial comparing BB of different dialyzabilities is warranted. Funding: Veterans Affairs Support

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.049
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology→Same topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies→French-language works237,207→