A Randomized‐Controlled Pilot Study Comparing ICD Implantation with and Without Intraoperative Defibrillation Testing in Patients with Heart Failure and Severe Left Ventricular Dysfunction: A Substudy of the RAFT Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The need to perform defibrillation testing (DT) at the time of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) insertion is controversial. In the absence of randomized trials, some regions now perform more than half of ICD implants without DT. METHODS: During the last year of enrolment in the Resynchronization for Ambulatory Heart Failure Trial, a substudy randomized patients to ICD implantation with versus without DT. RESULTS: Among 252 patients screened, 145 were enrolled; 75 randomized to DT and 70 to no DT. Patients were similar in terms of age (65.9 ± 9.3 years vs 67.9 ± 8.9 years); LVEF (24.7 ± 4.6% vs 23.6 ± 4.6%), QRS width (154.8 ± 23.5 vs 155.8 ± 23.6 ms), and history of atrial fibrillation (5% vs 6%). All 68 patients in the DT arm tested according to the protocol achieved a successful DT (≤25 J); 96% without requiring any system modification. No patient experienced perioperative stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure (HF), intubation or unplanned ICU stay. The length of hospital stay was not prolonged in the DT group: 20.2 ± 26.3 hours versus 21.3 ± 23.0 hours, P = 0.79. One patient in the DT arm had a failed appropriate shock and no patient suffered an arrhythmic death. The composite of HF hospitalization or all-cause mortality occurred in 10% of patients in the no-DT arm and 19% of patients in the DT arm (HR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.21-1.31, P = 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized trial, perioperative complications, failed appropriate shocks, and arrhythmic death were all uncommon regardless of DT. There was a nonsignificant increase in the risk of death or HF hospitalization with DT.
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) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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".