Positive Response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Reduces Arrhythmic Events After Elective Generator Change in Patients with Primary Prevention CRT‐D
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) are effective therapies for heart failure (HF) patients with cardiac dyssynchrony. Patients receiving primary prevention CRT-defibrillator that positively remodel might no longer qualify for ICD indication due to CRT-induced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improvement. We aimed to evaluate the outcome of CRT-D patients at the time of device replacement (DR). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients undergoing primary prevention CRT-D DR were prospectively included from November 2007 to March 2011 in 2 centers. CRT response was as defined as ≥1 NYHA class improvement and an increase in LVEF ≥10%. Before DR, all patients underwent echocardiography and device interrogation. Patients without theoretical ongoing ICD indication (TOII) at DR were defined as those with LVEF ≥40% without appropriate ICD therapy (appropriate therapy) during the first ICD service-life. A total of 107 consecutive patients were enrolled. Sixty-one patients (57%) were considered CRT responders after the index procedure. At the time of DR (56.4 ± 14.4 months from initial implant), 87% of CRT responders were free of appropriate therapy, compared with 70% of CRT nonresponders (P = 0.02). Thirty-nine patients (37%) did not meet the criteria for TOII. During follow-up (mean 26.4 ± 14.4 months after DR), 37 patients (95%) without TOII were free of appropriate therapy versus 49 of 68 patients (72%) with ongoing TOII (P = 0.007). By multivariable analysis, the only independent predictor of appropriate therapy after DR was TOII (hazard ratio = 6.43; P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Absence of theoretical ICD indication occurs in more than one-third of CRT-D patients undergoing DR. In addition, appropriate therapy rate is relatively low (2.2% per year) in this subgroup of patients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".