Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Patients With Permanent Atrial Fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization (CRT) prolongs survival in patients with systolic heart failure and QRS prolongation. However, most trials excluded patients with permanent atrial fibrillation. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Resynchronization for Ambulatory Heart Failure Trial (RAFT) randomized patients to an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) or ICD+CRT, stratified by the presence of permanent atrial fibrillation. Patients with permanent atrial fibrillation were randomized to CRT-ICD (n=114) or ICD (n=115). Patients receiving a CRT-ICD were similar to those receiving an ICD: age (71.6±7.3 versus 70.4±7.7 years), left ventricular ejection fraction (22.9±5.3% versus 22.3±5.1%), and QRS duration (151.0±23.6 versus 153.4±24.7 ms). There was no difference in the primary outcome of death or heart failure hospitalization between those assigned to CRT-ICD versus ICD (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.65-1.41; P=0.82). Cardiovascular death was similar between treatment arms (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.55-1.71; P=0.91); however, there was a trend for fewer heart failure hospitalizations with CRT-ICD (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.38-1.01; P=0.052). The change in 6-minute hall walk duration between baseline and 12 months was not different between treatment arms (CRT-ICD: 19±84 m versus ICD: 16±76 m; P=0.88). Patients treated with CRT-ICD showed a trend for a greater improvement in Minnesota Living with Heart Failure score between baseline and 6 months (CRT-ICD: 41±21 to 31±21; ICD: 33±20 to 28±20; P=0.057). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with permanent atrial fibrillation who are otherwise CRT candidates appear to gain minimal benefit from CRT-ICD compared with a standard ICD.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".