MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403818081 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehae666.756

Visit-to-visit changes in heart rate in heart failure: a pooled participant-level analysis of the PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF trials

2024· article· en· W4403818081 on OpenAlexaff
Henri Lu, Brian Claggett, Milton Packer, Michael A. Pfeffer, Karl Swedberg, Jean L. Rouleau, Michael R. Zile, Martin Lefkowitz, Akshay S. Desai, Pardeep S. Jhund, John J.V. McMurray, Scott D. Solomon, Muthiah Vaduganathan

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureHeart ratePooled analysisInternal medicineCardiologyMeta-analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Resting heart rate (HR) is a strong established marker of risk in patients with heart failure (HF), but the clinical implications of changes in HR over time are less well established. We aimed to explore the association between visit-to-visit changes in HR and cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in a pooled participant-level dataset of 2 large cohorts of patients with HF across the full range of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Methods PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF were global, multicenter, randomized clinical trials testing sacubitril/valsartan against an active control (enalapril or valsartan, respectively) in patients with HF and LVEF ≤40% (in PARADIGM-HF) or LVEF ≥45% (in PARAGON-HF). Change in HR was defined as the difference in HR between a visit at any time and the preceding visit. The association between the change in HR and subsequent risk of first HF hospitalization (HFH) or CV death was assessed using Cox proportional hazards models, after adjusting for HR at the preceding visit and potential confounders. HR at any time was also assessed using repeated measures regression models with restricted cubic splines, and was plotted relative to time defined as the number of months prior to or immediately following a HFH event or end of follow-up. Patients who experienced HFH during the study period were compared to a control population who remained free of all-cause hospitalization and all-cause death during the follow-up period. Results A total of 13,194 patients (mean age 67±11 years, 67% men, mean LVEF 40±15%) were included. Heart rates were available in 16 visits in both PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF. Over a median follow-up of 2.4 years, 3,114 patients underwent a first HFH or CV death (10.4 events per 100 patient-years). Any increase in HR from the preceding visit, compared with no change, was associated with a significantly higher risk of first HFH or CV death (Figure 1, adjusted hazard ratio 1.10, 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.08–1.13, P<0.001, per 5 bpm increase in HR). Conversely, a drop in HR was associated with significantly lower risk. This prognostic association between temporal changes of HR and risk of first HFH or CV death was consistent across the range of LVEF (Pinteraction=0.34) and seen irrespective of background use of β-blockers (Pinteraction=0.91). Relative increases in HR were especially prognostic in patients without a history of atrial fibrillation/flutter (Pinteraction=0.01). HR at any time appeared to increase during the 8 months prior to a HFH event, and remained elevated after hospitalization, in comparison to a relatively stable HR observed in the control group (Figure 2). Conclusions Across a broad spectrum of patients with chronic HF, relative increases in HR from a preceding visit strongly and independently predicted both CV and non-CV outcomes. Our findings suggest that detection of notable increases in HR between outpatient visits may help identify patients at heightened risk of adverse events.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.015
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.173
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies→French-language works237,207→