A Prospective Placebo Controlled Randomized Study of Caffeine in Patients with Supraventricular Tachycardia Undergoing Electrophysiologic Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Patients with cardiac arrhythmias are generally instructed to avoid caffeine intake. A comprehensive evaluation of the electrophysiological effects of caffeine on atrial and ventricular tissues in humans has not previously been performed. METHODS AND RESULTS: Eighty patients (31 men, mean age 49 ± 14 years) with symptomatic supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) undergoing an electrophysiologic study (EPS) prior to catheter ablation were randomized to receive oral caffeine or placebo. Caffeine at a dosage of 5 mg/kg (moderate intake) or placebo tablets were administered orally at a mean time of 57 ± 13 minutes prior to the EPS. The median (IQR) caffeine level in patients receiving caffeine was 7.4 μg/mL (4.7-8.7), as compared with 0.15 (0.00-0.61) in patients receiving placebo, P < 0.0001. Caffeine was associated with a significant increase in resting systolic and diastolic blood pressures as compared with placebo, while the resting heart rate was not significantly different between both groups. Caffeine was not associated with significant effects on the effective refractory period of the atrium or ventricle, as well as on AV node conduction. SVT was induced in all but 3 patients; there was no significant difference between groups receiving placebo or caffeine on SVT inducibility or the cycle length of induced tachycardias. CONCLUSIONS: Caffeine, at moderate intake, was associated with significant increases in systolic and diastolic blood pressures, but had no evidence of a significant effect on cardiac conduction and refractoriness. Furthermore, no effect of caffeine on SVT induction or more rapid rates of induced tachycardias was found.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".