MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064897980 · doi:10.1001/jama.294.24.3093

Prophylactic Oral Amiodarone for the Prevention of Arrhythmias That Begin Early After Revascularization, Valve Replacement, or Repair

2005· article· en· W2064897980 on OpenAlexaff
L. Brent Mitchell, Derek V. Exner, D. George Wyse, Carol J. Connolly, Gregory D. Prystai, Alexander J. Bayes, William T. Kidd, Teresa M. Kieser, John J. Burgess, André Ferland, Charles MacAdams, Andrew Maitland

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsLibin Cardiovascular Institute of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAmiodaroneRevascularizationValve replacementCardiologySurgeryAtrial fibrillationInternal medicineMyocardial infarctionStenosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Atrial tachyarrhythmias after cardiac surgery are associated with adverse outcomes and increased costs. Previous trials of amiodarone prophylaxis, while promising, were relatively small and yielded conflicting results. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a brief perioperative course of oral amiodarone is an effective and safe prophylaxis for atrial tachyarrhythmias after cardiac surgery overall and in important subgroups. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Double-blind randomized controlled trial of 601 patients listed for nonemergent coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery and/or valve replacement/repair surgery between February 1, 1999, and September 26, 2003, at a tertiary care hospital. The patients were followed up for 1 year. INTERVENTION: Oral amiodarone (10 mg/kg daily) or placebo administered 6 days prior to surgery through 6 days after surgery (13 days). Randomization was stratified for subgroups defined by age, type of surgery, and use of preoperative beta-blockers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Incidence of atrial tachyarrhythmias lasting 5 minutes or longer that prompted therapy by the sixth postoperative day. RESULTS: Atrial tachyarrhythmias occurred in fewer amiodarone patients (48/299; 16.1%) than in placebo patients (89/302; 29.5%) overall (hazard ratio [HR], 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34-0.69; P<.001); in patients younger than 65 years (19 [11.2%] vs 36 [21.1%]; HR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.28-0.94]; P = .02); in patients aged 65 years or older (28 [21.7%] vs 54 [41.2%]; HR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.27-0.75]; P<.001); in patients who had CABG surgery only (22 [11.3%] vs 46 [23.6%]; HR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.26-0.79]; P = .002); in patients who had valve replacement/repair surgery with or without CABG surgery (25 [23.8%] vs 44 [44.1%]; HR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.31-0.84; P = .008); in patients who received preoperative beta-blocker therapy (27 [15.3%] vs 42 [25.0%]; HR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.34-0.99]; P = .03); and in patients who did not receive preoperative beta-blocker therapy (20 [16.3%] vs 48 [35.8%]; HR, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.22-0.71]; P<.001), respectively. Postoperative sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias occurred less frequently in amiodarone patients (1/299; 0.3%) than in placebo patients (8/302; 2.6%) (P = .04). Dosage reductions of blinded therapy were more common in amiodarone patients (34/299; 11.4%) than in placebo patients (16/302; 5.3%) (P = .008). There were no differences in serious postoperative complications, in-hospital mortality, or readmission to the hospital within 6 months of discharge or in 1-year mortality. CONCLUSION: Oral amiodarone prophylaxis of atrial tachyarrhythmias after cardiac surgery is effective and may be safe overall and in important patient subgroups. Clinical Trials Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00251706.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations339
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207