Amiloride: Effects on Right andLeft Ventricular Function inPatients with Inducible SustainedVentricular T achycardia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of antiarrhythmic therapy with amiloride on right ventricular (RV) and left ventricular (LV) systolic performance were studied in 22 patients with inducible sustained ventricular tachycardia, 15 male, mean age 59 ± 12 years. Amiloride was given orally 5 or 10 mg b.i.d. which resulted in a mean serum trough concentration of 52.1 ± 18.2 ng/ml. Baseline LV ejection fraction (EF) did not change during amiloride therapy (35.5 ± 15.2 vs. 36.4 ± 14.9%). RV EF, however, increased slightly but significantly during amiloride therapy (43.6 ±11.1 vs. 46.9 ± 11.5%, p < 0.01). Improvement in RV EF was seen only in patients with depressed baseline LV EF (<40%). RV and LV enddiastolic and end-systolic volumes were smaller during amiloride therapy, but the changes were not statistically significant. Similarly, amiloride did not affect exercise duration or exercise heart rate or blood pressure. At peak exercise, the effects of amiloride on measures of ventricular performance were similar to those at rest. We conclude that in patients with inducible sustained ventricular tachycardia, antiarrhythmic therapy with amiloride does not adversely affect systolic ventricular function or exercise performance regardless of baseline LV function. Amiloride improves RV systolic function in patients with baseline LV dysfunction by mechanisms which need further study.
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) | 0.001 | 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".