MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Network Meta-Analysis of Quality of Life in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

2025· article· en· W4414022427 on OpenAlexafffund
Robert Margaryan, Nariman Sepehrvand, Wouter Ouwerkerk, Jasper Tromp, Ricky D. Turgeon, Justin A. Ezekowitz

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Heart Failure · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of British ColumbiaInstitute of Infection and ImmunityCanadian VIGOUR Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineEjection fractionHeart failureInternal medicineIvabradineRandomized controlled trialQuality of life (healthcare)ValsartanCardiologyMeta-analysisHeart rateBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although the effects of various combinations of treatments on mortality and morbidity outcomes in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) have been evaluated, the impact on quality of life is unknown. This study evaluated and compared the composite impact of pharmacological therapies on quality of life in HFrEF using a frequentist network meta-analysis and systematic review methodology. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials published between January 1, 2021 and August 10, 2024. We included all contemporary and efficacious HFrEF therapies used in adults. The primary outcome was change in quality of life measured through the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire and the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire, expressed as mean difference (MD). RESULTS: We identified 41 randomized controlled trials representing 41 145 patients (76.5% male). The trials had a median of 276 participants (105-464), a mean left ventricular ejection fraction of 28%, and a median follow-up time of 5 months (3-8). A combination of angiotensin receptor blocker/neprilysin inhibitors (ARNi)+β-blockers (BB)+sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i; MD, +5.3 [+0.4, +10.3]) was the most effective at improving quality of life followed by ARNi+BB+mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA)+SGLT2i (MD, +7.1 [-1.0 to +15.2]), ACE inhibitor+BB+MRA+SGLT2i (MD, +5.3 [-2.6, to +13.3]), and ACE inhibitor+BB+MRA+ivabradine (MD, +5.2 [-3.1 to +13.6]), which were not statistically significant. Individually, the most effective treatments for improving quality of life were SGLT2i (MD, +3.4 [+1.4 to +5.30]), ivabradine (MD, +3.3 [+0.1 to +6.4]), ARNi (MD, +2.6 [-3.2 to +8.5]), and MRA (MD, +1.8 [-4.8 to +8.4]). CONCLUSIONS: A composite of ARNi+BB+SGLT2i or ARNi+BB+MRA+SGLT2i was the most effective at improving quality of life in patients with HFrEF.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.057
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.057
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.045
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Heart FailureSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207