Search for the Optimal Right Ventricular Pacing Site: Design and Implementation of Three Randomized Multicenter Clinical Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The optimal site to permanently pace the right ventricle (RV) has yet to be determined. To address this issue, three randomized prospective multicenter clinical trials are in progress comparing the long-term effects of RV apical versus septal pacing on left ventricular (LV) function. The three trials are Optimize RV Selective Site Pacing Clinical Trial (Optimize RV), Right Ventricular Apical and High Septal Pacing to Preserve Left Ventricular Function (Protect Pace), and Right Ventricular Apical versus Septal Pacing (RASP). METHODS: Patients that require frequent or continuous ventricular pacing are randomized to RV apical or septal pacing. Optimize RV excludes patients with LV ejection fraction <40% prior to implantation, whereas the other trials include patients regardless of baseline LV systolic function. The RV septal lead is positioned in the mid-septum in Optimize RV, the high septum in Protect Pace, and the mid-septal inflow tract in RASP. Lead position is confirmed by fluoroscopy in two planes and adjudicated by a blinded panel. The combined trials will follow approximately 800 patients for up to 3 years. RESULTS: The primary outcome in each trial is LV ejection fraction evaluated by radionuclide ventriculography or echocardiography. Secondary outcomes include echo-based measurements of ventricular/atrial remodeling, 6-minute hall walk distance, brain natriuretic peptide levels, and clinical events (atrial tachyarrhythmias, heart failure, stroke, or death). CONCLUSION: These selective site ventricular pacing trials should provide evidence of the importance of RV pacing site in the long-term preservation of LV function in patients that require ventricular pacing and help to clarify the optimal RV pacing site.
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 | 0.180 | 0.192 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".