Efficacy of Amiodarone in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation with and without Left Ventricular Dysfunction: A Pooled Analysis of AFFIRM and AF‐CHF Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite amiodarone's established safety profile in the setting of heart failure, it is unknown whether its impact on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation is modulated by left ventricular function. METHODS AND RESULTS: A pooled analysis of 3,307 patients (age 68.0 ± 0.2 years; 31.1% female) enrolled in AFFIRM and AF-CHF trials was conducted to assess the effect of rhythm control with amiodarone on cardiovascular outcomes, according to left ventricular systolic function. In amiodarone-treated patients (N = 1,107), freedom from recurrent atrial fibrillation was 84% and 45% at 1 and 5 years, respectively, with no differences according to left ventricular function (P = 0.8754). Similarly, the adjusted proportion of time spent in atrial fibrillation (15.0 ± 1.8%) did not vary according to ventricular function (P = 0.6094). Over 40.0 ± 0.3 months of follow-up, 1,963 (59.4%) patients required at least one hospitalization, 1,401 (42.6%) of whom had cardiovascular-related hospitalizations. Adjusted all-cause and cardiovascular hospitalization rates were similar with amiodarone versus rate control in all patients and in subgroups with and without severe left ventricular dysfunction. A total of 729 (22.0%) patients died, 498 (15.1%) from cardiovascular causes. Adjusted all-cause and cardiovascular mortality rates were similar with amiodarone versus rate control overall and in subgroups with and without severe left ventricular dysfunction. CONCLUSION: Amiodarone's efficacy in maintaining sinus rhythm and reducing the burden of atrial fibrillation is similar in the presence or absence of severe left ventricular dysfunction. Rhythm control with amiodarone is associated with comparable hospitalization and mortality rates to rate control in patients with and without left ventricular dysfunction.
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 | 0.020 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".