Safety and efficacy of empagliflozin in heart failure among patients with a history of valvular heart disease: Insights from EMPEROR-Pooled
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Valvular heart disease (VHD)-associated heart failure (HF) remains an important and growing cause of morbidity and mortality. There are no contemporary data on the efficacy and safety of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with a history of VHD. Methods: The EMPEROR-Pooled trial analyzed 9718 patients with HF who were enrolled in the randomized trials of empagliflozin versus placebo in HF with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HfrEF; EMPEROR-Reduced) and HF with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (HFpEF; EMPEROR-Preserved). These trials evaluated a primary outcome of time to first HF hospitalization or cardiovascular death. Here we analyze outcomes of the EMPEROR-Pooled patients according to the presence and etiology of VHD history. Results: > .05). Conclusions: We present the first large analysis of SGLT2i (empagliflozin) use in HF patients by history of VHD. Although VHD history was associated with worse outcomes in HF patients, empagliflozin demonstrated consistent safety, efficacy, and patient-reported outcomes across all categories of VHD history.
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) | 0.001 | 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".