Dual Pathway Inhibition in Patients with Atherosclerosis with or without Heart Failure: Insights from the XATOA Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease might benefit from dual pathway inhibition (DPI) therapy, which includes rivaroxaban and aspirin. Patients with concomitant heart failure (HF) are a subgroup with a higher risk for ischemic events. Accordingly, we explored the risks and benefits of DPI therapy in a generalizable population of patients with concomitant atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and HF. Methods: therosclerosis (XATOA) registry is a prospective, multicentre registry of patients with either coronary artery or peripheral artery disease that were given DPI therapy. The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and the safety outcome was major bleeding. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess the association of HF status and ejection fraction (EF) on the outcomes of interest. Results: Of 5532 participants, 4022 (72.7%) had documentation of HF status. Of those 873 (21.5%) had a history of HF (EF > 40%, 461; EF ≤ 40%, 181, EF unknown, 231). Over a median follow-up of 465 days (interquartile range, 372-576), the primary outcome occurred in 4.9% of participants with HF compared with 2.4% in those without HF (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-2.41). The safety outcome was similar in patients with and without HF (0.9% vs 1.11%; a hazard ratio, 0.7; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-1.67). Conclusions: In a generalizable cohort of patients with atherosclerotic disease and HF, the use of DPI therapy is associated with outcomes similar to those observed in recent randomized controlled clinical trials.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".