Frequency and Outcomes of Postrandomization Atrial Tachyarrhythmias in the Resynchronization/Defibrillation in Ambulatory Heart Failure Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Whether adding cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT-D) to an implanted cardioverter-defibrillator alters the risk of atrial fibrillation or other atrial tachyarrhythmias (AF/AT), or if postimplantation AF/AT modulate the benefits of CRT-D, remain unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 972 Resynchronization/Defibrillation in Ambulatory Heart Failure Trial (RAFT) participants without permanent AF, who were randomized to CRT-D (n=495) versus nonresynchronization defibrillator (implanted cardioverter-defibrillator; n=477) within the predefined stratum eligible for an atrial lead. Occurrence of postrandomization AF/AT was prospectively assessed, and Cox models were used to test the independent association between the postrandomization AF/AT and the RAFT primary composite outcome of all-cause mortality or hospitalization for heart failure. Over 41 (±19) months, postrandomization AF/AT occurred in 216 (45.3%) patients randomized to implanted cardioverter-defibrillator and 249 (50.3%) randomized to CRT-D. After adjusting for competing risk of death, randomization to CRT-D increased risk of postrandomization AF/AT (hazard ratio, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.42; P=0.045). Postrandomization AF/AT, which remained paroxysmal in 69.5%, did not reduce biventricular pacing percentage. In adjusted models, postrandomization AF/AT was not associated with the primary outcome (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.84-1.30). However, AF/AT was associated with a borderline decreased risk of mortality (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.58-1.00) but increased risk of heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio, 1.43; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.90). CONCLUSIONS: In RAFT, nearly half of the patients developed postrandomization AF/AT, and those randomized to CRT-D had borderline significant higher risk. Postrandomization AF/AT was associated with risk of heart failure hospitalization, but not with the primary composite outcome. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00251251.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".