MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Impact of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy on Hospitalizations in the Resynchronization-Defibrillation for Ambulatory Heart Failure Trial

2014· article· en· W2123693386 on OpenAlexafffund
Anne M. Gillis, Charles R. Kerr, François Philippon, Gary E. Newton, Mario Talajic, Michael Froeschl, Sandra Froeschl, Elizabeth Swiggum, Elizabeth Yetisir, George A. Wells, Anthony Tang

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of VictoriaSt. Paul's HospitalMontreal Heart InstituteLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaUniversity of OttawaMount Sinai Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineCardiac resynchronization therapyHeart failureInternal medicineImplantable cardioverter-defibrillatorCardiologyDefibrillationAmbulatoryRandomized controlled trialEjection fraction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This study reports the impact of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) on hospitalizations in patients randomized to implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) or ICD-CRT in the Resynchronization-Defibrillation for Ambulatory Heart Failure Trial (RAFT). METHODS AND RESULTS: Hospitalization rates and lengths of hospital stay were compared between the 2 groups. At the 18-month follow-up, the numbers of patients hospitalized for any cause were similar in the ICD (n=351, 38.8%) and ICD-CRT (n=331, 30.0%) groups. The number of patients hospitalized for heart failure was significantly lower in the ICD-CRT (n=101, 11.3%) compared with the ICD (n=141, 15.6%; P=0.003) group. The number of patients hospitalized for a device-related indication was similar in the ICD-CRT group (n=147, 16.4%) and ICD group (n=126, 13.9%; P=0.148). The total number of hospitalizations for any cause (n=1448 versus n=1553; P=0.042), any cardiovascular cause (n=667 versus n=790; P=0.017), and any heart failure cause (n=385 versus n=505; P<0.0001) was significantly lower in ICD-CRT group compared with the ICD group, whereas the number of hospitalizations for device-related causes was significantly higher in the ICD-CRT group compared with the ICD group (246 versus 159; P<0.001). Although the reduction in hospitalizations for heart failure in the CRT-ICD group was offset by an increased number of hospitalizations for device-related indications, the length of hospital stay for any cause was significantly shorter in the ICD-CRT group (8.83±13.30 days) compared with the ICD group (9.59±14.40 days; P=0.005). CONCLUSION: ICD-CRT therapy significantly reduces hospitalizations and total days in hospital in patients with New York Heart Association class II/III heart failure compared with ICD therapy despite increased admissions for device-related indications. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00251251.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studiesFrench-language works237,207