MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2173072190 · doi:10.1161/jaha.115.002539

Importance of Implantable Cardioverter‐Defibrillator Back‐Up in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Recipients: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

2015· review· en· W2173072190 on OpenAlexaff
Sérgio Barra, Rui Providência, Anthony Tang, Patrick M. Heck, Munmohan Virdee, Sharad Agarwal

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiac resynchronization therapyInternal medicineImplantable cardioverter-defibrillatorCardiologyHeart failureHazard ratioAtrial fibrillationMeta-analysisArtificial cardiac pacemakerIschemic cardiomyopathyRelative riskCardiomyopathyEjection fractionConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: It remains to be determined whether patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) benefit from the addition of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a literature search looking for studies of patients implanted with CRTs. Comparisons were performed between patients receiving CRT-defibrillator (CRT-D) versus CRT-pacemaker (CRT-P). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. The relative risk (RR) and hazard ratio (HR, when available) were used as measurements of treatment effect. Nineteen entries were entitled for inclusion, comprising 12 378 patients (7030 receiving CRT-D and 5348 receiving CRT-P) and 29 799 patient-years of follow-up. Those receiving CRT-D were younger, were more often males, had lower NYHA class, lower prevalence of atrial fibrillation, higher prevalence of ischemic heart disease, and were more often on beta-blockers. Ten studies showed significantly lower mortality rates with the CRT-D device, while the remaining 9 were neutral. The pooled data of studies revealed that CRT-D patients had significantly lower mortality rates compared with CRT-P patients (mortality rates: CRT-D 16.6% versus CRT-P 27.1%; RR=0.69, 95% CI 0.62-0.76; P<0.00001). The number needed to treat to prevent one death was 10. The observed I(2) values showed moderate heterogeneity among studies (I(2)=48%). The benefit of CRT-D was more pronounced in ischemic cardiomyopathy (HR=0.70, 95% CI 0.59-0.83, P<0.001, I(2)=0%), but a trend for benefit, albeit of lower magnitude, could also be seen in non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy (HR=0.79, 95% CI 0.61-1.02, P=0.07, I(2)=36%). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of the ICD associates with a reduction in the risk of all-cause mortality in CRT patients. This seems to be more pronounced in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.037
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.306 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart AssociationSame topicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studiesFrench-language works237,207