Dofetilide for Atrial Arrhythmias in Congenital Heart Disease: A Multicenter Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Very little is known about use of the class III antiarrhythmic dofetilide in patients with congenital heart disease (CHD). METHODS: A multicenter retrospective review of experience with dofetilide in CHD patients was undertaken. RESULTS: Twenty adults with CHD and refractory atrial arrhythmias were treated with dofetilide at four institutions over a 7-year period. Three (15%) experienced adverse effects during in-hospital initiation of dofetilide (two with torsade de pointes, one with excessive QTc prolongation) and were not continued on this therapy. The remaining 17 were discharged taking dofetilide, with either resolved or improved arrhythmia. One was lost to follow-up. Five subsequently discontinued dofetilide due to waning effectiveness, manifest by recurrence of their arrhythmias. Eleven (55%) remained on dofetilide at most recent visit, with a median follow-up of nearly 1 year. Seven of these 11, or 35% of the CHD patients originally started on dofetilide, experienced a complete resolution of their arrhythmia. The remaining four had breakthrough episodes of atrial arrhythmia, but remained on dofetilide. No patient experienced torsade de pointes after the in-hospital initiation period. CONCLUSIONS: Used appropriately, dofetilide appears to be a viable adjunct to catheter-based ablation and alternative pharmacological approaches for the treatment of atrial arrhythmias in adult patients with congenital heart disease.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".