Use of implantable cardioverter defibrillators in Canadian and US survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiac arrest due to ventricular arrhythmia in the absence of a reversible cause or contraindication has been a class I indication for insertion of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator since 1998. We compared and contrasted the use of implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy in Canada and the United States among adults who survived a cardiac arrest. METHOD: Data on hospital separations from April 1, 1994 through March 31, 2003 were obtained from the Health Person-Oriented Information Database maintained by Statistics Canada and from the US National Hospital Discharge Survey on all patients with a primary diagnosis of cardiac arrest, ventricular fibrillation or ventricular flutter for the same 9-year period. We excluded all records of patients with a secondary diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction. RESULTS: In Canada, 3793 patients survived to discharge after a cardiac arrest; 628 (16.6%) of these were implanted with a cardioverter defibrillator before discharge. The implant rate rose steadily from 5.4% in 1994/95 to 26.7% in 2002/03. In the United States, 23 688 (30.2%) of 78 538 such survivors received an implantable cardioverter defibrillator before discharge. Logistic regression analysis indicated that sex, age, fiscal year, the hospital's teaching status, hospital size and patient history of heart failure were positive predictors of implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation. Age, renal failure, liver failure and cancer were negative predictors of receiving an implantable cardioverter defibrillator. INTERPRETATION: The rate of use of implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy for cardiac arrest survivors in Canada is increasing, but still is lower than the rate in the United States.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".