Risk of Arrhythmia and Sudden Death in Patients With Asymptomatic Preexcitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The incidence of sudden cardiac death (SCD) and the management of this risk in patients with asymptomatic preexcitation remain controversial. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to define the incidence of SCD and supraventricular tachycardia in patients with asymptomatic Wolff-Parkinson-White ECG pattern. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a systematic search of prospective, retrospective, randomized, or cohort English-language studies in EMBASE and Medline through February 2011. Studies reporting asymptomatic patients with preexcitation who did not undergo ablation were included. Twenty studies involving 1869 patients met our inclusion criteria. Participants were primarily male with a mean age ranging from 7 to 43 years. Ten SCDs were reported involving 11 722 person-years of follow-up. Seven studies originated from Italy and reported 9 SCDs. The risk of SCD is estimated at 1.25 per 1000 person-years (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57-2.19). A total of 156 supraventricular tachycardias were reported involving 9884 person-years from 18 studies. The risk of supraventricular tachycardia was 16 (95% CI, 10-24) events per 1000 person-years of follow-up. Children had numerically higher SCD (1.93 [95% CI, 0.57-4.1] versus 0.86 [95% CI, 0.28-1.75]; P=0.07) and supraventricular tachycardia (20 [95% CI, 12-31] versus 14 [95% CI, 6-25]; P=0.38) event rates compared with adults. CONCLUSION: The low incidence of SCD and low risk of supraventricular tachycardia argue against routine invasive management in most asymptomatic patients with the Wolff-Parkinson-White ECG pattern.
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 | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".