Baseline delayed left ventricular activation predicts long-term clinical outcome in cardiac resynchronization therapy recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: We undertook this analysis to assess the relationship between delayed left ventricular activation time (LVAT), assessed prior to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), with the long-term clinical outcomes in CRT recipients. We also sought to determine if baseline LVAT had similar predictive value in patients who were versus were not chronically paced prior to CRT. METHODS AND RESULTS: Baseline pre-implant electrocardiograms (ECGs) of 219 consecutive patients undergoing CRT were analysed. Of these, 68 (31%) were chronically right ventricular (RV)-paced pre-CRT. Maximum LVAT was measured as QRS-duration minus time from QRS onset to the first notch in the QRS. Cox models were used to assess the association between LVAT and clinical outcome (death or cardiac transplant). Over a median follow-up of 56 months, 92 patients (42%) died and 10 (5%) underwent cardiac transplant. In the non-RV-paced group an independent linear relationship between LVAT and outcome [hazard ratio (HR) 0.67 per 50 ms increase in LVAT; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46-0.99] was observed. An LVAT ≥ 125 ms was associated with a markedly lower risk of outcome (adjusted HR 0.51; 95% CI 0.30-0.86) in these patients. Despite a similar incidence of death or cardiac transplantation in the RV-paced group vs. the non-paced one, no significant association between LVAT and outcome was observed in the RV-paced group. CONCLUSION: Baseline LVAT, a simple ECG measure, independently predicts long-term outcome with CRT in non-RV paced patients. However, prolonged LVAT is not associated with an altered prognosis in patients chronically RV paced prior to CRT.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".