Implantable Defibrillators Improve Survival in End-Stage Renal Disease: Results from a Multi-Center Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Small retrospective analyses suggest that end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients do not obtain as much of a survival benefit from an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) as non-ESRD patients do. We aimed to assess the survival effect of an ICD in ESRD patients with left ventricular dysfunction. METHODS: Data from two registries identified ESRD patients with an ICD and ESRD patients with left ventricular dysfunction (defined as ejection fraction <0.35). Cox proportional hazards regression was performed, including certain predefined covariates to assess the effect of an ICD on survival. RESULTS: Overall survival in the full cohort was a median of 4.7 years with 20 deaths in the ICD group and 29 deaths in the no-ICD group. The median survival in the ICD group was 8.0 years and 3.1 years in the no-ICD group. Crude analysis showed a better survival in the ICD group as compared to the no-ICD group (p = 0.016). The multivariable analysis confirmed that the ICD group had significantly less all-cause mortality compared to the no-ICD group (HR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.19, 0.82; p = 0.013). CONCLUSION: An ICD is associated with a higher survival in ESRD patients with left ventricular dysfunction. This result merits further study in a larger cohort of 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".