MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Patients With Heart Failure and a QRS Complex <120 Milliseconds

2013· article· en· W2034226929 on OpenAlex
Bernard Thibault, François Harel, Anique Ducharme, Michel White, Kenneth A. Ellenbogen, Nancy Frasure‐Smith, Denis Roy, François Philippon, Paul Dorian, Mario Talajic, Marc Dubuc, Peter G. Guerra, Laurent Macle, Léna Rivard, Jason G. Andrade, Paul Khairy

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCardiac resynchronization therapyMedicineQRS complexHeart failureCardiologyInternal medicineEjection fractionConfidence intervalRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.317

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.220 · 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