Is electrical storm in ICD patients the sign of a dying heart? Outcome of patients with clusters of ventricular tachyarrhythmias
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Electrical storm in patients with implanted cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) is purported to carry an ominous prognosis. METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively compared 40 patients with electrical storm (defined as three or more episodes of ventricular arrhythmia requiring ICD therapy in a 24 h period) with those only having isolated appropriate ICD therapy (n=57) and with patients having no or only inappropriate ICD therapy (n=125). All patients received ICDs for documented sustained VT or VF. There was no significant difference in age, sex, ejection fraction, total follow-up time, or underlying heart disease between any of the three groups. Patients who had electrical storm received their first appropriate ICD therapy 275 +/- 369 days post-implant (35% had storm as their first event) with storm occurring an average of 599 +/- 710 days post-implant. Patients had 1.5 +/- 1.0 storms in total (median= 1), with 55 +/- 91 episodes per storm. There were no significant differences in actuarial survival at 5-year follow-up between the three groups. Eighty percent of storm patients were alive 5 years post-implant. CONCLUSION: Storm is a common occurrence in ICD patients, can occur at any time during the follow-up period, and does not independently confer increased mortality.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".