<b>L</b>eft Ventr<b>i</b>cular Three‐Dimensional Quadripolar <b>L</b>ead <b>A</b>cute <b>C</b>linical Study: The LILAC Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This multicenter acute clinical study was designed to verify novel three-dimensional (3D) quadripolar lead designs that can achieve ≤2.5 V average pacing capture threshold (PCT) not only at the apex, but also at the base of the left ventricle with phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS) avoidance for cardiac resynchronization. METHODS: During the implant procedure, up to two different left ventricular investigational leads were introduced and tested in the same target coronary vein based on the coronary sinus venogram in a wedged and unwedged position. Adverse events were collected in 30 days following the procedure. RESULTS: Eighty-seven leads were tested in 50 patients. When the best performing spiral electrode was chosen from each lead testing, the average of the best PCT on spiral in a wedged position was similar to the unwedged position (1.7 ± 1.5 V vs 1.9 ± 1.5 V, P = ns) and was similar to the wedged tip electrode average PCT (1.7 ± 1.5 V vs 1.6 ± 1.6 V, P = ns). In the majority of patients (89-96%), pacing was achievable in a mid-basal ventricular location without PNS. CONCLUSIONS: This acute study demonstrated that a 3D quadripolar spiral lead design can achieve acceptable PCTs and avoid PNS without repositioning the lead at implant in the vast majority of patients. It also demonstrated that this lead design can achieve mid-basal ventricular stimulation with low PCT and good acute stability.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".