The European Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Survey: Comparison of Outcomes between De Novo Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Implantations and Upgrades
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an effective treatment for a subset of patients with chronic heart failure. Data on the benefit of CRT in heart failure patients with previous right ventricular pacemakers or standard defibrillators are sparse. METHODS AND RESULTS: The European (HFA, Heart Failure Association/EHRA, European Heart Rhythm Association) CRT Survey enrolled patients from 141 centres in 13 countries in Europe collecting baseline demographic, echocardiographic, clinical, and implant data, with follow-up at ∼1 year. The present analysis reports implantation data and 1 year outcomes regarding New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, global patient assessment, hospitalizations, complications, and mortality in patients undergoing de novo CRT implantations compared with those receiving an upgrade of a previously implanted device (pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillators). This analysis includes 2367 CRT implant procedures of which 692 (28%) were upgrades to CRT. Distribution of NYHA functional class and left ventricular function were similar between the groups. Procedural duration was also similar, although fluoroscopy time was shorter in the 'upgrades'. There was no difference in the frequency of peri-procedural complications. There were similar improvements in NYHA functional class and similar reduction in QRS duration, but more patients reported unchanged global assessment status in the upgraded group. Total and cause-specific mortality at 1 year was low and the same in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: More than one quarter of all CRT procedures are upgrades from existing systems, although this group has not been subject to randomized clinical trials. Our data suggest that there are no significant differences in clinical outcomes or complication rates between upgrades and de novo procedures. Clinical study no NCT 01185392.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".