Heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. A combination not to be underestimated
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and heart failure (HF) frequently coexist and interact through complex and bidirectional hemodynamic mechanisms that amplify symptoms' burden and complicate clinical management. The present review explores the impact of COPD across the HF spectrum, particularly in HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), where comorbidities, such as COPD, exert a dominant role in disease expression. COPD-induced hyperinflation reduces cardiac preload and increases right ventricular afterload, while HF-related congestion impairs pulmonary function and gas exchange, illustrating a tight cardiorespiratory coupling. Diagnostic challenges stem from overlapping symptoms and the limited specificity of biomarkers, such as natriuretic peptides, especially in HFpEF. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) emerges as a valuable tool for distinguishing between cardiac and pulmonary limitations and guiding individualized treatment strategies. From a therapeutic standpoint, β1-selective blockers are not only safe in COPD patients but are pivotal in those with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), where they have been demonstrated to improve survival and reduce both HF and COPD exacerbations. Concerns regarding bronchodilator safety in HF remain largely theoretical, with current evidence supporting their continued use when clinically indicated. Ultimately, optimal care for patients with coexisting COPD and HF requires a phenotype-specific approach, incorporating insights from pathophysiology, diagnostic innovation, and evidence-based pharmacotherapy to improve outcomes in this challenging patient population.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".