MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401476347 · doi:10.1101/2024.08.08.24311710

Excess ventilation and chemosensitivity in patients with chronic coronary syndrome and patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction – a case control study

2024· preprint· en· W4401476347 on OpenAlexaff
Prisca Eser, Kaesermann Dominic, Calamai Pietro, Kalberer Anja, Stuetz Laura, Huber Sarina, Duffin James, Matthias Wilhelm

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEjection fractionMedicineHeart failureVentilation (architecture)CardiologyInternal medicineHypercapniaRespiratory system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background In patients with chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) increased ventilation/carbon dioxide production (V̇ E /V̇CO 2 ) slope has been found to predict disease progression and mortality similarly to patients with heart failure (HF), however, chemosensitivity has rarely been assessed in patients with CCS. Method Patients with CCS, HF with reduced ejection fraction (EF<50%), old healthy (45+ years) and young adult healthy controls (<35 years) were recruited. For patients, a V̇ E /V̇CO 2 slope ≥36 was an inclusion criterion. The Duffin rebreathing method was used to determine the resting end-expiratory partial pressure of carbon dioxide (P ET CO 2 ), ventilatory recruitment threshold (VRT) and slope (sensitivity) during a hyperoxic (150 mmHg O 2 ) and hypoxic (50 mmHg O 2 ) rebreathing test to determine central and peripheral chemosensitivity. Results In patients with CCS, HF, and old and young controls, median V̇ E /V̇CO 2 slopes were 40.2, 41.3, 30.5 and 28.0, respectively. Both patient groups had similarly reduced hyperoxic VRT (at P ET CO 2 42.1 and 43.2 mmHg) compared to 46.0 and 48.8 mmHg in the old and young controls. Neither hypoxic VRT nor hyper- or hypoxic slopes were significantly different in patients compared to controls. Both patient groups had lower resting P ET CO 2 than controls, but only patients with HF had increased breathing frequency and rapid shallow breathing at rest. Conclusion In patients with cardiac disease and excess ventilation, central chemoreflex VRT was reduced independently of the presence of heart failure. Low VRTs were related to resting excess ventilation in patients with CCS or HF, however, rapid shallow breathing was present only in patients with HF. Clinical perspective What is new? Excess ventilation during exercise and heightened chemosensory reflexes may be present not only in patients with HF but also in patients with CCS. This suggests that there is a gradual derangement of neurologic and/or hormonal factors leading to excess ventilation before the establishment of HF. In patients with excess ventilation during exercise there is also excess ventilation at rest. Excess ventilation in patients with CCS does not show the rapid shallow breathing pattern that is typical for patients with HF. What are the clinical implications? While excess ventilation during exercise causes dyspnoea with associated negative effects on exercise tolerance and quality of life, 1 excess ventilation at rest has been poorly investigated. More research is warranted as physiologic consequences may be substantial with the large time spent at rest compared to exercise. The finding that the threshold of P ET CO 2 at which ventilation starts to increase rather than the V̇ E /P ET CO 2 slope is increased in patients with inefficient ventilation suggests electrolyte derangement as an at least contributing cause which may stimulate alternative treatments such as intravenous iron therapy. 2 Abstract Figure

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)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.224 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlFrench-language works237,207