MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Dofetilide for Atrial Arrhythmias in Congenital Heart Disease: A Multicenter Study

2009· article· en· W2079681297 on OpenAlexaff
Ronald Wells, Paul Khairy, Louise Harris, Charles C. Anderson, Seshadri Balaji

Bibliographic record

VenuePacing and Clinical Electrophysiology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalMontreal Heart Institute
FundersOregon Health and Science University
KeywordsDofetilideMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineHeart diseaseQT intervalhERGAdverse effectAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations63
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePacing and Clinical ElectrophysiologySame topicCardiac Arrhythmias and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207