MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract 4146681: Effect of Sacubitril/Valsartan on the Right Ventricle after High-Risk Myocardial Infarction: Insights from the PARADISE-MI Trial

2024· article· en· W4404381903 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaowen Wang, Amil M. Shah, Brian Claggett, Kimia Karimi Taheri, Karola Jering, Attila Kovács, Béla Merkely, V.Yu. Nagy, Maja Čikeš, Jean L. Rouleau, Marc A. Pfeffer, Scott Solomon

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMyocardial infarctionCardiologyInternal medicineSacubitril, ValsartanVentricleValsartanHeart failureEjection fraction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Right ventricular (RV) dysfunction is a common complication after myocardial infarction (MI) and a risk factor for adverse events. Effect of sacubitril/valsartan (S/V) on RV function in patients after MI is unknown. Hypothesis: RV dysfunction is associated with adverse events following high-risk MI and treatment with S/V attenuates adverse RV remodeling and functional impairments in high-risk post-MI patients. Aims: To compare the baseline clinical and echocardiographic parameters by quartiles of RV fractional area change (RVFAC), and to evaluate the effect of S/V (compared to ramipril) on RV size and function from randomization to 8 months in post-MI patients with LVEF≤40% and/or pulmonary congestion. Methods: Among the 5,661 participants in PARADISE-MI trial, 544 were enrolled in the echocardiographic sub-study. Baseline characteristics were assessed across quartiles of RVFAC (N=446). Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess the association between RVFAC and clinical outcomes. Treatment effects of S/V compared to ramipril on were assessed using linear regression. The primary outcome was cardiovascular (CV) death or incident HF (defined as HF hospitalization or outpatient symptomatic HF). Results: Baseline clinical characteristics were similar across quartiles of RVFAC, with the exception that patients with higher RVFAC were more likely to be female (Table 1). Higher RVFAC was associated with higher LVEF, smaller LV chamber size, and lower E/e’ ratios (Table 1). A lower baseline RVFAC was associated with a higher risk of incident HF, but not associated with a higher risk of primary outcome or CV death (Figure 1). Changes of RVFAC, RV end-diastolic area, RV end-systolic area, tricuspid annular S’, and RV outflow tract velocity-time integral from randomization to 8 months were similar in those randomized to S/V compared to ramipril. Baseline RVFAC did not modify the treatment effect of S/V on RV size or RVFAC (p-interaction > 0.16). Conclusion: In high-risk post-MI patients, a lower RVFAC was associated with worse LV systolic and diastolic function and higher risk of incident HF. Compared to ramipril, S/V was not superior in improving RV systolic function.

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)0.002
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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designRandomized trial
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 venueCirculationSame topicCardiovascular Function and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207