Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy: An Option for Inotrope-Supported Patients with End-Stage Heart Failure?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with refractory heart failure requiring inotropic support have a very poor prognosis. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) offers symptomatic and possibly a survival benefit for patients with stable chronic heart failure (CHF) and a prolonged QRS, but its role in the management of end-stage heart failure requiring inotropic support has not been evaluated. METHODS: We performed a retrospective observational study of patients undergoing CRT at our institution. RESULTS: We identified 10 patients who required inotropic support for refractory CHF and who underwent CRT while on intravenous inotropic agents. Patients had been in hospital for 30+/-29 days and had received inotropic support for 11+/-6 days prior to CRT. All patients were weaned from inotropic support (2+/-2 days post-CRT) and all patients survived to hospital discharge (12+/-13 days post-CRT). Furosemide dose fell from 160+/-38 mg on admission to 108+/-53 mg on discharge (p<0.01). Serum creatinine fell from 192+/-34 micromol/l prior to CRT to 160+/-37 micromol/l on discharge (p<0.05). Serum sodium was 131+/-4 mmol/l prior to CRT and remained low at 132+/-5 mmol/l on discharge. At short-term follow up (mean 47 days), all patients were alive; mean furosemide dose was 130+/-53 mg (p=0.056 versus pre-CRT). Serum creatinine was 157+/-36 micromol/l and serum sodium had increased to 138+/-6 mmol/l (p<0.05 and p<0.01, respectively, versus pre-CRT). CONCLUSION: CRT may offer a new therapeutic option for inotrope-supported CHF patients with a prolonged QRS.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".