MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4413971135 · doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2025.08.051

Effect of Vericiguat on Total Heart Failure Events in Compensated Outpatients With HFrEF

2025· article· en· W4413971135 on OpenAlexaff
Faı̈ez Zannad, Yogesh N.V. Reddy, Irina Barash, Kevin J. Anstrom, Marc P. Bonaca, Maria Borentain, Stefano Corda, Pedro Teixeira, Justin A. Ezekowitz, Davis Gates, Carolyn S.P. Lam, Eldrin F. Lewis, JoAnn Lindenfeld, Ciaran J. McMullan, Robert J. Mentz, Christopher M. O’Connor, Piotr Ponikowski, Giuseppe Rosano, Clara Saldarriaga, Michele Senni, James E. Udelson, Alessia Urbinati, Vanja Vlajnic, Adriaan A. Voors, Aiwen Xing, Mahesh J. Patel, Javed Butler

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American College of Cardiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsCanadian VIGOUR CentreUniversity of Alberta
FundersMerck Sharp and DohmeBayer HealthCareBayer Corporation
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In the VICTOR (Vericiguat Global Study in Participants With Chronic Heart Failure) trial, in a contemporary ambulatory cohort with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and no recent hospitalization, the primary outcome of hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) and cardiovascular death was not statistically significantly reduced with vericiguat. Vericiguat reduced risk of mortality but not HHF. In this ambulatory compensated cohort, time to first HHF may underestimate the overall worsening HF burden by failing to consider the high proportion of outpatient worsening HF events. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the effect of vericiguat on the overall risk of worsening HF by incorporating the entire patient experience of worsening outpatient and inpatient HF episodes. METHODS: VICTOR was a phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial testing the effect of vericiguat in ambulatory patients with HFrEF who had not experienced recent worsening (defined as HHF admission within 6 months or outpatient intravenous diuretic use within 3 months) and were on a background of high use of contemporary guideline therapy. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death or HHF. The current analysis provides detailed effects of vericiguat on overall worsening HF in both the inpatient and outpatient settings, including urgent care visits for intravenous diuretics or outpatient oral diuretic initiation or intensification. RESULTS: A total of 6,105 participants were randomized. Outpatient worsening HF was more common as the first worsening HF event (n = 851, 59.3%), compared with HHF (n = 507, 35.4%) or urgent HF visits (n = 76, 5.3%). Outpatient oral diuretic initiation or intensification was associated with increased mortality (RR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.47-1.94; P < 0.001). Overall worsening HF occurred in 686 participants (22.5%) in the vericiguat group and 748 participants (24.8%) in the placebo group (HR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.81-1.00; P = 0.047). The composite of all-cause death and overall worsening HF occurred in 917 participants (30.0%) in the vericiguat group and 1,004 participants (32.9%) in the placebo group (HR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.82-0.98; P = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: In compensated patients with HFrEF on contemporary guideline therapy, worsening HF in outpatients was more common than HHF and was associated with higher risk of mortality. Exploratory analyses suggested a potential reduction in overall worsening HF events when both inpatient and outpatient settings were considered.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designNon-randomized 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

Citations17
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American College of Cardiology→Same topicHeart Failure Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→