Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Patients With Heart Failure and a QRS Complex <120 Milliseconds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the benefits of cardiac resynchronization therapy are well established in selected patients with heart failure and a prolonged QRS duration, salutary effects in patients with narrow QRS complexes remain to be demonstrated. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Evaluation of Resynchronization Therapy for Heart Failure (LESSER-EARTH) trial is a randomized, double-blind, 12-center study that was designed to compare the effects of active and inactive cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction and a QRS duration <120 milliseconds. The trial was interrupted prematurely by the Data Safety and Monitoring Board because of futility and safety concerns after 85 patients were randomized. Changes in exercise duration after 12 months were no different in patients with and without active cardiac resynchronization therapy (-0.7 minutes [95% confidence interval (CI), -2.9 to 1.5] versus 0.8 minutes [95% CI, -1.2 to 2.9]; P=0.31]. Similarly, no significant differences were observed in left ventricular end-systolic volumes (-6.4 mL [95% CI, -18.8 to 5.9] versus 3.1 mL [95% CI, -9.2 to 15.5]; P=0.28) and ejection fraction (3.3% [95% CI, 0.7-6.0] versus 2.1% [95% CI, -0.5 to 4.8]; P=0.52). Moreover, cardiac resynchronization therapy was associated with a significant reduction in the 6-minute walk distance (-11.3 m [95% CI, -31.7 to 9.7] versus 25.3 m [95% CI, 6.1-44.5]; P=0.01), an increase in QRS duration (40.2 milliseconds [95% CI, 34.2-46.2] versus 3.4 milliseconds [95% CI, 0.6-6.2]; P<0.0001), and a nonsignificant trend toward an increase in heart failure-related hospitalizations (15 hospitalizations in 5 patients versus 4 hospitalizations in 4 patients). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%, symptoms of heart failure, and a QRS duration <120 milliseconds, cardiac resynchronization therapy did not improve clinical outcomes or left ventricular remodeling and was associated with potential harm. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00900549.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".