Results of pacemaker implantation in 104 dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To document the outcome, survival and complications involved in pacemaker implantation in dogs in a retrospective study. METHODS: Case records for all dogs in which pacemaker implantation was performed were reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 104 dogs underwent pacemaker implantation. Dogs were presented with atrioventricular (AV) block (71), sick sinus syndrome (25) or vasovagal syncope (eight). Age at presentation varied from six months to 13 years with a median age of seven years and two months. The Labrador was the most commonly represented breed (17 cases). All but one dog survived pacemaker implantation, with 93 showing resolution of their clinical signs while 10 dogs showed intermittent residual signs. One-, three- and five-year survival estimates were 86, 65 and 39 per cent, respectively. Major complications after implantation were documented in 15 dogs and three of these led to fatalities. Minor complications were noted in 23 dogs. Sudden death occurred in six dogs three to 55 months following successful pacemaker implantation. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Transvenous pacemaker implantation was successful in reducing or eliminating clinical signs in over 90 per cent of dogs with third-degree atrioventricular (AV) block or sick sinus syndrome. In dogs with vasovagal syncope, six of eight dogs had greatly reduced frequency of collapse and two became asymptomatic. Although the procedure was associated with complications, these were rarely life threatening and good survival was documented in the majority of cases.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".