MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2345572214 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1513614

Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation versus Escalation of Antiarrhythmic Drugs

2016· article· en· W2345572214 on OpenAlexafffundabout
John L. Sapp, George A. Wells, Ratika Parkash, William G. Stevenson, L. Blier, J. Sarrazin, Bernard Thibault, Léna Rivard, Lorne J. Gula, Peter Leong‐Sit, Vidal Essebag, Pablo B. Nery, Stanley Tung, Jean‐Marc Raymond, Laurence D. Sterns, George D. Veenhuyzen, Jeff S. Healey, Damian Redfearn, Jean-François Roux, Anthony Tang

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments
Canadian institutionsLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaKingston General HospitalRoyal Jubilee HospitalRoyal Columbian HospitalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalMcGill UniversityUniversity of OttawaPopulation Health Research InstituteQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeMontreal Heart InstituteDalhousie UniversityInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de QuébecWestern University
FundersBiosense WebsterCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchSt. Jude MedicalBoston Scientific Corporation
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyAblationInternal medicineVentricular tachycardiaTachycardiaAnesthesiaCatheter ablation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Recurrent ventricular tachycardia among survivors of myocardial infarction with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is frequent despite antiarrhythmic drug therapy. The most effective approach to management of this problem is uncertain. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial involving patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and an ICD who had ventricular tachycardia despite the use of antiarrhythmic drugs. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either catheter ablation (ablation group) with continuation of baseline antiarrhythmic medications or escalated antiarrhythmic drug therapy (escalated-therapy group). In the escalated-therapy group, amiodarone was initiated if another agent had been used previously. The dose of amiodarone was increased if it had been less than 300 mg per day or mexiletine was added if the dose was already at least 300 mg per day. The primary outcome was a composite of death, three or more documented episodes of ventricular tachycardia within 24 hours (ventricular tachycardia storm), or appropriate ICD shock. RESULTS: Of the 259 patients who were enrolled, 132 were assigned to the ablation group and 127 to the escalated-therapy group. During a mean (±SD) of 27.9±17.1 months of follow-up, the primary outcome occurred in 59.1% of patients in the ablation group and 68.5% of those in the escalated-therapy group (hazard ratio in the ablation group, 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.53 to 0.98; P=0.04). There was no significant between-group difference in mortality. There were two cardiac perforations and three cases of major bleeding in the ablation group and two deaths from pulmonary toxic effects and one from hepatic dysfunction in the escalated-therapy group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and an ICD who had ventricular tachycardia despite antiarrhythmic drug therapy, there was a significantly lower rate of the composite primary outcome of death, ventricular tachycardia storm, or appropriate ICD shock among patients undergoing catheter ablation than among those receiving an escalation in antiarrhythmic drug therapy. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; VANISH ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00905853.).

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations842
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicCardiac Arrhythmias and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207