Anxiety Sensitivity Moderates Prognostic Importance of Rhythm-Control Versus Rate-Control Strategies in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Congestive Heart Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with high anxiety sensitivity (AS) become extremely anxious with heart rate increases, palpitations, and symptoms of psychological arousal. AS predicts panic attacks. In atrial fibrillation (AF), AS correlates with symptom preoccupation and reduced quality of life. We assessed whether AS is associated with outcomes of rhythm-control versus rate-control in congestive heart failure (CHF) patients with AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Before random assignment, 933 participants (172 women) in the Atrial Fibrillation and Congestive Heart Failure Trial completed the Anxiety Sensitivity Inventory (ASI). Cox proportional hazards models showed no main effects of treatment (P=0.61) or AS (P=0.72) for time to cardiovascular death, but these factors interacted significantly (P=0.020). High AS patients (upper quartile, ASI ≥33) randomly assigned to rhythm-control had significantly lower cardiovascular mortality than those receiving rate-control (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.93; P=0.022). With lower ASI scores (<33), treatments did not differ (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.51; P=0.46). The interaction between treatment and dichotomized ASI scores remained significant (P=0.009) after adjustment for covariates including age, sex, hypertension, diabetes, creatinine, ejection fraction, time since first diagnosis of AF, New York Heart Association functional class, depression symptoms, marital status, and baseline β-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, oral anticoagulants, and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. CONCLUSIONS: Atrial fibrillation and congestive heart failure patients with high AS had better long-term prognosis with rhythm- than rate-control. If replicated, AS should be considered in treatment selection. Research is also needed concerning mechanisms and possible joint AS-AF treatments. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT88597077.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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".