Dofetilide is safe and effective in preventing atrial fibrillation recurrences in patients accepted for catheter ablation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of dofetilide among patients refractory to other anti-arrhythmic drugs (AADs) and accepted for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-seven of 454 patients (69% male, 58% paroxysmal, age 60 +/- 10 years, AF duration 8 +/- 7 years) scheduled for AF ablation between February 2004 and May 2008 were treated with dofetilide. Patients had failed 1.9 +/- 1.1 AADs. Anti-arrhythmic drugs were stopped five half-lives before ablation and 3 months for amiodarone. Patients were followed for 15 +/- 7 months with routine and symptom-driven monitoring. Success was defined as no further AF and partial success as a 50% reduction in frequency/duration of AF episodes. Thirty-six patients started dofetilide 158 +/- 167 days before ablation: 9 had no improvement, 16 experienced partial success, 8 had no further AF, and 2 improved enough to forgo ablation. Seventy-one patients started dofetilide immediately following ablation, of which 14 had no improvement, 22 experienced partial success, and 32 had no further AF. Twenty patients started dofetilide 119 +/- 153 days post-ablation, of which four had no improvement, seven experienced partial success, and nine had no further AF. Six patients discontinued dofetilide during initiation for QT prolongation. CONCLUSION: Dofetilide appears safe and effective in preventing AF in patients refractory to other AADs undergoing catheter ablation.
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) | 0.000 | 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".