MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators in Primary and Secondary Prevention

2003· review· en· W1992285236 on OpenAlexaff
Justin A. Ezekowitz, Paul W. Armstrong, Finlay A. McAlister

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Internal Medicine · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSudden cardiac deathVentricular fibrillationVentricular tachycardiaInternal medicineAmiodaroneCardiologyRelative riskSudden deathSudden cardiac arrestImplantable cardioverter-defibrillatorClinical trialAtrial fibrillationConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Sudden cardiac death is common in persons with cardiovascular disease. PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) in persons at increased risk for sudden cardiac death. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (1980-2002), EMBASE (1980-2002), Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trial Registry (2002, Volume 3), other databases, and conference proceedings. Primary study authors and device manufacturers were contacted, and bibliographies of relevant papers were hand searched. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized, controlled clinical trials evaluating ICDs versus usual care were selected. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers extracted data independently. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eight trials were included in the final analysis (4909 patients, 1154 deaths). Compared with usual care (most commonly amiodarone therapy), ICDs significantly reduced sudden cardiac death (relative risk [RR], 0.43 [95% CI, 0.35 to 0.53]) and all-cause mortality (RR, 0.74 [CI, 0.67 to 0.82]). The included trials were divided a priori into two categories: secondary prevention (involving patients resuscitated after cardiac arrest or unstable ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation [ n = 1963]) and primary prevention (involving patients at increased risk for sudden cardiac death but without documented cardiac arrest, ventricular fibrillation, or ventricular tachycardia [ n = 2946]). Regardless of baseline risk, ICDs were equally efficacious in preventing sudden cardiac death in both types of trials (RR, 0.50 [CI, 0.38 to 0.66] for secondary prevention vs. 0.37 [CI, 0.27 to 0.50] for primary prevention). However, the magnitude of benefit in total mortality varied within the primary prevention trials depending on baseline risk for sudden cardiac death. CONCLUSIONS: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators prevent sudden cardiac death regardless of baseline risk. However, their impact on total mortality is sensitive to baseline risk for arrhythmic death. Decisions about resource allocation for ICDs depend on accurate stratification of patients according to risk.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.004
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.082
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations265
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Internal MedicineSame topicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studiesFrench-language works237,207