The effect of ranolazine on maintaining sinus rhythm in patients with resistant atrial fibrillation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) may arise out of anomalous impulse activity at atrial venous junctions. Triggered activity may be a source of abnormal impulse activity. Ranolazine is an anti-anginal agent, which inhibits normal and abnormal late Na+ channel current in the ventricle and peak Na+ channel current in the atrium. This produces an energy sparing effect and stabilizes cardiac membranes. Ranolazine is a potent inhibitor of triggered activity. The purpose of this report is to describe our initial experience with ranolazine used in patients with resistant AF. METHODS: Seven patients (4 males, 3 females, 67 +/- 9 years) who developed recurrent AF within hours to a few days of restoring sinus rhythm despite AF ablation and /or failing one or more anti-arrhythmic agents were started on ranolazine (500-1000 mg/twice/day) after stopping all other anti-arrhythmic therapy. All but one patient had some form of associated structural heart disease. RESULTS: Two patients received no apparent benefit from ranolazine developing recurrent AF within 2 days. All other patients derived significant benefit. Four patients have experienced no recurrent AF. The other patient relapsed at 3 months and again at 6 months. The mean time in sinus rhythm to date, or to the first relapse, for the five responders was 27 +/- 11 weeks. No clinically evident pro-arrhythmic episodes occurred. CONCLUSION: Ranolazine was helpful in maintaining sinus rhythm in the majority of patients in which more established measures had failed. A controlled prospective trial is warranted to further investigate the efficacy of ranolazine in AF.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".