MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 4364669: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on CardioMEMS for Enhanced Heart Failure Management: Examining Randomized Controlled Trials and Observational Studies

2025· article· en· W4415793283 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Amha Weldehana, Abel Girma Tessema, Meseker Fentie, Samrawit Zewde, Beeletsega Yeneneh, Bekure Siraw, Anthon Fuisz

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeart failureObservational studyRandomized controlled trialHazard ratioRelative riskMeta-analysisCohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Patients with severe or advanced heart failure symptoms are often hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure despite being on guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMT). Some randomized control trials have shown that implanting CardioMEMS, a pressure sensor device placed inside the pulmonary artery to measure systolic and diastolic pulmonary pressure, can improve rates of heart failure hospitalization without affecting mortality. However, many non-randomized observational studies have not been thoroughly investigated and compared with the findings from RCTs. Objectives: Compare the one-year heart failure hospitalization rates, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality between patients with and without CardioMEMS. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted through April 30, 2025. A total of 420 studies, including randomized control trials, prospective single-arm studies, retrospective cohorts, and case-control studies, were screened. Studies that reported a Hazard ratio (HR) or relative risk (RR) were included. Random effects models were utilized to derive pooled HR and RR. Study quality and bias were evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, funnel plots, and Egger’s test. Results: A total of 19 studies, three RCTs and 16 observational studies, with 11,343 participants, were included. The data showed a mean age ranging from 60.9 to 75.5 years, 34.5% women, 76.1-83.7% Whites, and 12.6-18.4% Blacks. 65.3% had HFrEF, mostly NYHA class III. Pooled RCTs showed a 31% relative risk reduction (HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.55–0.86; I2 = 61.3%). Observational studies also showed benefit: those reporting hazard ratios had a pooled HR of 0.48 (95% CI: 0.36–0.62; I2 = 90.5%), while those reporting risk ratios yielded a pooled RR of 0.38 (95% CI: 0.30–0.47; I2 = 68.7%). All-cause mortality from RCTs showed no difference (HR: 0.97, CI: 0.74-1.28). However, the observational studies lacked sufficient data on cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. Conclusion: CardioMEMS implantation was associated with a significant reduction in one-year heart failure hospitalizations across study designs. Both randomized and observational studies reported comparable outcomes in controlled and real-world settings.

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)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.087
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.087
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0240.034
Bibliometrics0.0090.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.205 · 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
GenreReview

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices→French-language works237,207→