Cardiac resynchronization therapy in adults with congenital heart disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: In adults with congenital heart disease (CHD) heart failure is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality but experience with and reported outcome of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is limited. We investigated the efficacy of CRT in adults with CHD. Methods and results: This was a retrospective study including 48 adults with CHD who received CRT since 2003 in four tertiary referral centres. Responders were defined as patients who showed improvement in NYHA functional class and/or systemic ventricular ejection fraction by at least one category. Ventricular function was assessed by echocardiography and graded on a four point ordinal scale. Median age at CRT was 47 years (range 18-74 years) and 77% was male. Cardiac diagnosis included tetralogy of Fallot in 29%, (congenitally corrected) transposition of great arteries in 23%, septal defects in 25%, left sided lesions in 21%, and Marfan syndrome in 2% of the patients. The median follow-up duration after CRT was 2.6 years (range 0.1-8.8). Overall, 37 out of 48 patients (77%) responded to CRT either by improvement of NYHA functional class and/or systemic ventricular function. There were 11 non-responders to CRT. Of these, three patients died and four underwent heart transplantation. Conclusion: In this cohort of older CHD patients, CRT was accomplished with a success rate comparable to those with acquired heart disease despite the complex anatomy and technical challenges frequently encountered in this population. Further studies are needed to establish appropriate guidelines for patient selection and long term outcome.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".