Effect of β-Blocking Therapy on Outcome in the Multicenter UnSustained Tachycardia Trial (MUSTT)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Beta-blockers are known to reduce total mortality and sudden death in survivors of recent myocardial infarction. The effects of these agents in patients at high risk for sudden death with remote infarction are not clear. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analyzed the effect of beta-blockers on outcomes in 2096 patients with coronary artery disease, ejection fraction < or =40%, and spontaneous nonsustained ventricular tachycardia enrolled in the Multicenter UnSustained Tachycardia Trial (MUSTT). Forty-five percent of 702 patients with inducible sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmia and 35% of 1394 patients without inducible tachycardia were discharged from hospital receiving beta-blockers. Patients treated with beta-blockers were younger and had higher ejection fractions, higher rates of recent angina, and more recent infarction. beta-Blockers were associated with decreased total mortality for the entire study population (5-year mortality 50% with beta-blockers versus 66% without beta-blockers; adjusted P=0.0001). The mortality benefit associated with beta-blockers was present in patients with and without inducible tachycardia, except those treated with implantable defibrillators. There was no significant effect of beta-blocker therapy on the rate of arrhythmic death or cardiac arrest (adjusted P=0.2344). CONCLUSIONS: beta-Blocking agents have beneficial effects on survival of patients having characteristics of those enrolled in the MUSTT trial. These effects do not appear to be due to a specific antiarrhythmic effect of beta-blockers. The beneficial effects of beta-blockers were demonstrable in all patients except those treated with implantable defibrillators.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".