MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Managed Ventricular Pacing™ Versus VVI 40 Pacing (MVP) Trial: Clinical Background, Rationale, Design, and Implementation

2006· article· en· W1982470180 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael O. Sweeney, Kenneth A. Ellenbogen, Elaine Hogan Miller, Lou Sherfesee, Todd Sheldon, David J. Whellan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBradycardiaHeart failureAtrial fibrillationCardiologyRandomized controlled trialClinical endpointInternal medicineImplantable cardioverter-defibrillatorClinical trialVentricular fibrillationQuality of life (healthcare)Heart rateBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) reduce mortality among appropriately selected patients who have had or are at risk for life-threatening ventricular arrhythmia. Right ventricular apical (RVA) pacing has been implicated in worsening heart failure and death. The optimal pacemaker mode for bradycardia support while minimizing unnecessary and potentially harmful RVA pacing has not been determined. METHODS: The Managed Ventricular pacing vs. VVI 40 Pacing Trial (MVP) is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, single-blind, parallel, controlled clinical trial designed to establish whether atrial-based dual-chamber managed ventricular pacing mode (MVP) is equivalent or superior to back-up only ventricular pacing (VVI 40) among patients with standard indications for ICD therapy and no indication for bradycardia pacing. The MVP Trial is designed with 80% power to detect a 10% reduction in the primary endpoint of new or worsening heart failure or all-cause mortality in the MVP-treated group. Approximately 1,000 patients at 80 centers in the United States, Canada, Western Europe, and Israel will be randomized to MVP or VVI 40 pacing after successful implantation of a dual-chamber ICD. Heart failure therapies will be optimized in accordance with evidence-based guidelines. Prespecified secondary endpoints will include ventricular arrhythmias, atrial fibrillation, new indication for bradycardia pacing, health-related quality of life, and cost effectiveness. Enrollment began in October 2004 and concluded in April 2006. The study will be terminated upon recommendation of the Data Monitoring Committee or when the last patient enrolled and surviving has reached a minimum 2 years of follow-up. CONCLUSION: The MVP Trial will meet the clinical need for carefully designed prospective studies to define the benefits of atrial-based dual-chamber minimal ventricular pacing versus single-chamber ventricular pacing in conventional ICD patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.300 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cardiovascular ElectrophysiologySame topicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studiesFrench-language works237,207