Acute and chronic effects of cardiac resynchronization in patients developing heart failure with long-term pacemaker therapy for acquired complete atrioventricular block
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: We assessed the effects of cardiac re-synchronization therapy (CRT) in patients who developed otherwise unexplained heart failure (HF) during right ventricular apical (RVA)-pacing for acquired complete atrioventricular block (CAVB). METHODS AND RESULTS: Eighteen consecutive CAVB patients with HF during RVA-pacing were assessed with haemodynamic studies immediately and 12 months after CRT-upgrade. Ten patients had idiopathic CAVB and 13 showed normal left ventricular (LV) function at RVA-pacemaker implantation. HF developed after 81 +/- 10 months. RVA-pacing duration correlated (r = 0.49, P < 0.05) with LV ejection fraction (LVEF) deterioration. Biventricular- (BiV) and LV-pacing acutely improved the systolic function comparably, but only BiV improved diastolic function. One-year post-CRT-initiation, New York Heart Association classification improved 35 +/- 3% (P < 0.05) and the number of hospitalizations decreased 85 +/- 3% (P < 0.0001). CRT decreased LV end-diastolic diameter (LVEDd) 7 +/- 2% (P < 0.01) and increased LVEF by 23 +/- 7% (P < 0.01). The CRT-induced reduction in LVEDd tended to be greater in patients with RVA-pacing for < 5 years vs. > 5 years (7.7 +/- 2.5 vs. 3.6 +/- 1.0 mm, P = 0.08). CONCLUSION: CRT-upgrade improves the cardiac function and symptoms in CAVB patients with HF progression related to RVA-pacing. Because adverse LV-remodelling may be partly irreversible, consideration should be given to BiV- and LV-pacing upgrade as soon as possible after the indications appear, and prospective studies of the optimal timing of CRT-upgrade may be useful.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".