How many patients with heart failure are eligible for cardiac resynchronization? Insights from two prospective cohorts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To determine what proportion of patients with heart failure are eligible for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). METHODS AND RESULTS: Eligibility criteria from the trials establishing the efficacy of CRT were applied to two prospective cohorts: the first enrolled patients with newly diagnosed heart failure discharged from 103 hospitals between April 1999 and March 2001 ('the hospital discharge cohort'); the second enrolled patients seen in a specialized clinic between August 2003 and January 2004 ('the specialty clinic cohort'). In the hospital discharge cohort, 73 patients (3% of the 2640 patients with ischaemic or dilated cardiomyopathy and 1% of all 9096 patients with heart failure discharged alive) met trial eligibility criteria: LVEF< or =0.35, QRS > or =120 ms, sinus rhythm, and NYHA class III or IV symptoms despite the treatment with ACE-inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker and beta-blocker. In the specialty clinic cohort, 54 patients (21% of the 263 patients with ischaemic or dilated cardiomyopathy and 17% of all 309 patients with heart failure) met these criteria. If persistent symptoms despite taking spironolactone were required for CRT eligibility, then the proportions qualifying dropped to 1% in the hospital discharge cohort and 18% in the specialty clinic cohort. CONCLUSION: Few heart failure patients meet trial eligibility criteria for 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".