Slow Wall Motion Rather Than Electrical Conduction Delay Underlies Mechanical Dyssynchrony in Postinfarction Patients With Narrow QRS Complex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The mechanism of mechanical dyssynchrony in postinfarction patients with a narrow QRS complex is not defined but essential for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). METHODS AND RESULTS: Left ventricular electrical activation and subsequent wall motion were recorded for 16 patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy during intrinsic rhythm using a modified NOGA electromechanical mapping system. Ten patients presented mechanical dyssynchrony on tissue Doppler imaging, while 6 patients served as control subjects. The local activation time (LAT) was set by the maximum downslope of the unipolar electrogram. Local wall motion time (LMT) was defined as the time needed for the catheter tip to traverse half of its maximum inward deflection during systole. LAT and LMT were measured relative to the onset of the QRS complex. Electrical activation showed a septal-to-lateral pattern in all patients with a mean endocardial activation time of 65 +/- 13 ms. Control subjects exhibited 97.5% of all LMTs <290 +/- 17 ms. Delayed motion areas (cut-off LMT > 300 ms) showed no slowing of conduction. Wall motion time corrected for differences in electrical activation (LMT-LAT) was significantly longer in delayed (289 +/- 34 ms) than in regular (204 +/- 24 ms) motion areas (P = 0.002). Delayed motion segments were hypokinetic on echocardiography and presented a lower maximum inward motion (9.9 +/- 1.1 mm) compared to regular segments (10.9 +/- 1.2 mm) on electromechanical maps (P = 0.004). Viability, however, was preserved with unipolar and bipolar voltage amplitude >7 mV and >1.5 mV for 79% of all delayed motion areas. CONCLUSION: Dyssynchronous segments of an ischemic myocardium show unimpaired local activation but slow wall motion, thereby limiting the benefit of ventricular preexcitation via 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".