MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

9-03: Aair vs. dddr in sick sinus syndrome. extended follow-up in danpace

2016· article· en· W2597411003 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Niels Brandt, Rikke Esberg Kirkfeldt, Jens Cosedis Nielsen, Spange Mortensen Leif, Vagn Hagemann Jensen Gunnar, Jens Brock Johansen, Haugan Ketil

Bibliographic record

VenueEP Europace · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicBach Studies and Logistics Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioSick sinus syndromeAtrial fibrillationProportional hazards modelStroke (engine)Randomized controlled trialDanishPopulationHeart failureCohortInternal medicineConfidence intervalSurgeryPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: The Danish Multicenter Randomized Trial on Single Lead Atrial vs. Dual Chamber Pacing in Sick Sinus Syndrome (DANPACE) trial included 1415 patients with symptomatic sick sinus syndrome (SSS). After a mean follow-up of 5.4 years, this trial showed no differences in overall survival, stroke or heart failure (HF), whereas the risks of atrial fibrillation (AF) and pacemaker reoperation were significantly increased in patients randomized to AAI-pacing. The present study investigated long-term risk of death, stroke, HF, AF and PM-reoperation using national registry-based data. Method: The study population consisted of all 1384 patients included at Danish pacemaker centers in the DANPACE trial, 31 patients randomized in United Kingdom and Canada were excluded. Long-term follow-up data were obtained from the Danish National Health Registry, the Danish Pacemaker Registry and the Danish Civil Registry to extend the original DANPACE trial-database. Cox proportional-hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between randomized pacing mode and long-term survival, AF, HF, stroke and pacemaker reoperation adjusted for a priori selected confounders. Data analysis was intention-to-treat. Summary: The population consisted of 696 AAI- and 688 DDD-patients (97.8% of the DANPACE cohort). Median follow-up was 9.25 years (5-95 percentiles: 1.4-15.3 years). No patients were lost to follow-up. During follow-up 413 patients (59.3%) died in the AAI-group compared to 368 (53.5%) in the DDD-group; (adjusted HR (aHR) 1.04; confidence interval (CI) 0.90-1.19; p = 0.61). AF requiring hospitalization occurred in 211 patients (30.3%) in the AAI-group vs. 211 (30.7%) in DDD-group (aHR 0.99; CI 0.82-1.20; p = 0.94). There were no differences in risk of stroke (AAI 14.7% vs DDD 14.4%; aHR 0.99; CI 0.75-1.31; p = 0.95) or HF-hospitalization (AAI 13.9% vs DDD 13.7%; aHR 0.98; CI 0.73-1.30; p = 0.86). Four hundreds and fourteen patients (59.5%) had one or more reoperations in the AAI-group compared to 340 patients (49.4%) in the DDD-group (aHR 1.63; CI 1.42-1.88; p < 0.001). Predictors associated with increased risk of reoperation were randomization to AAI-PM and hypertension (HR 1.20; CI 1.03-1.41; p = 0.023). Conclusion: Using national registry-based data, this study supports previous findings of no significant difference in all-cause mortality among patients with sick sinus syndrome randomized to AAI- or DDD-PM. A significantly higher risk of reoperation was observed in patients randomized to AAI-pacing. We identified no differences in risk of hospitalization for AF, stroke or HF.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.647
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.195 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEP EuropaceSame topicBach Studies and Logistics DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207