Assessment of Resynchronization Therapy on Functional Status and Quality of Life in Patients Requiring an Implantable Defibrillator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) on physical function and Quality of Life (QoL) in patients who require an implantable defibrillator but do not meet guideline criteria for CRT has not been studied in detail. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a randomized study of 72 patients with high risk of sudden cardiac death, ejection fraction (EF) < or =35%, mild-to-moderate heart failure symptoms, and QRS > 120 ms. Patients received a CRT defibrillator and were randomized to CRT turned ON or OFF. Objective and subjective measures were performed at baseline and after 6 months. There was no difference in change in left ventricular end-systolic volume (ESV) by radionuclid angiogram scan, the primary endpoint, between the CRT ON group (DeltaESV =-7 +/- 52 mL), and CRT OFF group (DeltaESV =-30 +/- 47 mL). Similarly, echocardiogram measures of ESV and EF showed no difference between the two groups. In the CRT ON group, selected measures of QoL and subjective exercise tolerance but not heart failure symptoms improved significantly. Six-minute walk distance prolonged in the CRT ON group (baseline 313.6 +/- 114.4 m, 6-month 365.0 +/- 122.5 m, P = 0.01), but the difference in change in walk distance between the two groups was not significant. CONCLUSION: Further studies with larger sample size and longer follow-up will be required to allow definite conclusions regarding the potential benefit of CRT in this patient population.
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".