Azimilide for the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation, Atrial Flutter, and Paroxysmal Supraventricular Tachycardia: Results of a Randomized Trial and Insights on the Concordance of Symptoms and Recurrent Arrhythmias
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Azimilide hydrochloride is an investigational antiarrhythmic medication that had shown evidence of efficacy in prolonging the time to recurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF) or atrial flutter (AFL) and paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia (PSVT). This study was designed to confirm efficacy of 125 mg daily azimilide. METHODS AND RESULTS: The primary endpoint was ECG-documented recurrence of AF, AFL, or PSVT, followed for a maximum of 180 days. Four hundred eighty-two patients were enrolled in the United States and Canada (422 with AF or AFL and 60 with PSVT). The primary efficacy analysis included 402 patients with AF-AFL and 56 patients with PSVT. There was no significant difference in the time to first recurrence of symptomatic supraventricular arrhythmia in the AF-AFL stratum (median of 38 days for azimilide versus 27 days for placebo; hazard ratio [HR] of 1.14, P = 0.29). Similarly, there was no difference in time to recurrence in the PSVT stratum (>180 days for azimilide versus 135 days for placebo; HR = 1.28, P = 0.55). There were three deaths in the azimilide group and one in the placebo group. Four patients had nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (one torsades de pointes), all in the azimilide group. Asymptomatic recurrence was frequent in the AF-AFL group (8% with azimilide and 11% with placebo), but was absent in the PSVT group. False recurrence was common in both groups. CONCLUSION: Azimilide 125 mg daily was not associated with significant prolongation of the time to recurrent symptomatic supraventricular arrhythmias. There was substantial discordance between symptoms and recurrence.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".