Usefulness and Limitation of Dobutamine Stress Echocardiography to Predict Acute Response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It has been hypothesized that a long-term response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) could correlate with myocardial viability in patients with left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. Contractile reserve and viability in the region of the pacing lead have not been investigated in regard to acute response after CRT. METHODS: Fifty-one consecutive patients with advanced heart failure, LV ejection fraction 120 ms, and intraventricular asynchronism >or= 50 ms were prospectively included. The week before CRT implantation, the presence of viability was evaluated using dobutamine stress echocardiography. Acute responders were defined as a >or=15% increase in LV stroke volume. RESULTS: The average of viable segments was 5.8 +/- 1.9 in responders and 3.9 +/- 3 in nonresponders (P = 0.03). Viability in the region of the pacing lead had an excellent sensitivity (96%), but a low specificity (56%) to predict acute response to CRT. Mitral regurgitation (MR) was reduced in 21 patients (84%) with acute response. The presence of MR was a poor predictor of response (sensibility 93% and specificity 17%). However, combining the presence of MR and viability in the region of the pacing lead yields a sensibility (89%) and a specificity (70%) to predict acute response to CRT. CONCLUSION: Myocardial viability is an important factor influencing acute hemodynamic response to CRT. In acute responders, significant MR reduction is frequent. The combined presence of MR and viability in the region of the pacing lead predicts acute response to CRT with the best accuracy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".