Effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients without left intraventricular dyssynchrony
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To evaluate the effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) on long-term survival of patients without baseline left ventricular (LV) mechanical dyssynchrony. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 290 heart failure patients (age 67 ± 10 years, 77% males) without significant baseline LV dyssynchrony (<60 ms as assessed with tissue Doppler imaging) were treated with CRT. Patients were divided according to the median LV dyssynchrony measured after 48 h of CRT into two groups. All-cause mortality was compared between the subgroups. In addition, the all-cause mortality rates of these subgroups were compared with the all-cause mortality of 290 heart failure patients treated with CRT who showed significant LV dyssynchrony (≥60 ms) at baseline. In the group of patients without significant LV dyssynchrony, median LV dyssynchrony increased from 22 ms (inter-quartile range 16-34 ms) at baseline to 40 ms (24-56 ms) 48 h after CRT. The cumulative mortality rates at 1-, 2-, and 3-year follow-up of patients with LV dyssynchrony ≥40 ms 48 h after CRT implantation were significantly higher when compared with patients with LV dyssynchrony <40 ms (10, 17, and 23 vs. 3, 8, and 10%, respectively; log-rank P< 0.001). Finally, the cumulative mortality rates at 1-, 2-, and 3-year follow-up of patients with baseline LV dyssynchrony were 3, 8, and 11%, respectively (log-rank P= 0.375 vs. patients with LV dyssynchrony <40 ms). Induction of LV dyssynchrony after CRT was an independent predictor of mortality (hazard ratio: 1.247; P= 0.009). CONCLUSION: In patients without significant LV dyssynchrony, the induction of LV dyssynchrony after CRT may be related to a less favourable long-term outcome.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".