MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract 4367530: Impact Of Admission Timing On Management And In-Hospital Outcomes In Acute Heart Failure: Insight From The CAN-HF Registry

2025· article· en· W4415790997 on OpenAlexaffabout
Abdulmohsen Alshakhs, Petko Makedonski, Nathaniel M. Hawkins, Robert S. McKelvie, Stephanie Poon, George Honos, Justin A. Ezekowitz, Shelley Zieroth, Sean Virani, Nima Moghaddam

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHospital Admissions and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of AlbertaUniversité de MontréalSunnybrook Health Science CentreWestern UniversityHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeart failureEmergency departmentHospital admissionPresentation (obstetrics)Kidney diseaseRetrospective cohort studyAcute decompensated heart failureDisease managementMechanical ventilation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The impact of hospital admission timing on outcomes in acute heart failure (AHF) remain unclear. Prior studies suggest that timing of hospital presentation may affect early management. This study aimed to determine whether admission timing was associated with differences in patient characteristics, acute management, and in-hospital outcomes for AHF. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the Canadian Heart Failure (CAN-HF) registry of hospitalized patients with AHF across multiple Canadian centers. We categorized patient presentation by admission timing: weekday vs weekend, and daytime (8am to 8pm) vs nighttime (8pm to 8am). Baseline patient characteristics and clinical presentation details were compared between timing groups. Emergency department (ED) treatment patterns and key in-hospital outcomes were assessed for differences based on admission timing. Results: Of 943 patients hospitalized with AHF, 21.6% were admitted on weekends and 28.6% during nighttime hours. Patients with weekend admissions were older (77.8 vs. 75.5 years, p = 0.03), had more chronic kidney disease (12.7% vs. 6.9%, p = 0.01), and presented more frequently with pulmonary congestion on imaging (72.1% vs. 64.8%, p = 0.05). ED treatment was more intensive during off-hours: weekend admissions received more IV diuretics (71.6% vs. 61.7%, p = 0.01) and non-invasive ventilation (9.3% vs. 4.6%, p = 0.01); nighttime admissions had higher use of IV nitrates (5.6% vs. 1.5%, p < 0.01) and non-invasive ventilation (9.3% vs. 4.2%, p < 0.01). There were no delays (> 6 hours) in cardiology consultation based on timing of presentation (p = 0.50 weekday vs weekend, p = 0.56 daytime vs nighttime). Median time to diuretics was shorter at night (185 vs. 224.5 minutes, p = 0.02), and trended towards significance after adjustment ( Table 1) ; ED length of stay (LOS) was modestly shorter at night (10.5 vs. 11.0 hours, p = 0.04). Nighttime admission remained independently associated with shorter hospital stay while weekend admission did not impact LOS. Admission timing did not affect adjusted in-hospital mortality (Table 1). Conclusion: Patients presenting during off-hours were more acute and required more intensive, expeditious therapies in the ED. However, key in-hospital outcomes did not differ by admission timing. These findings suggest that prompt delivery of HF therapy rather than timing of presentation may drive outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.312

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicHospital Admissions and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207