A Randomized, Double‐Blind, Placebo‐Controlled Evaluation of the Efficacy and Safety of Intravenously Administered Dofetilide in Patients with Wolff‐Parkinson‐White Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pharmacological conversion of arrhythmias in Wolff-Parkinson-White (WPW) syndrome is often frequently undertaken. Current antiarrhythmic drugs used for conversion can be associated with significant side effects and variable efficacy. Fifteen male patients (mean age 34, range 18-63 years) with WPW syndrome and atrial fibrillation or AVRT induced in the electrophysiology laboratory were enrolled in a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled crossover study. Patients were randomized to one of two doses of intravenous dofetilide or placebo. Patients who failed to respond to this initial infusion received a second higher dose infusion of dofetilide. With the initial infusion, six of ten dofetilide patients converted to sinus rhythm compared to one of five placebo patients. After a second infusion of dofetilide for placebo patients and higher dose dofetilide for low dose dofetilide patients, the overall conversion rate was 71% with dofetilide compared with 20% for placebo (P = 0.046). Atrial fibrillation converted to sinus rhythm in 82% of patients who received dofetilide. Intravenous dofetilide was safe and effective at converting induced atrial fibrillation in patients with WPW syndrome.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".