Efficacy of Intravenous Administration of Landiolol in Patients With Acute Heart Failure and Supraventricular Tachyarrhythmia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with acute heart failure (HF) complicated by supraventricular tachyarrhythmia (SVT) often receive continuous intravenous infusion of landiolol or diltiazem for rate control. It is unclear whether the interval from initiation of infusion to commencement of oral beta-blocker (BB) therapy differs for these two drugs. METHODS: From January 2013 to July 2015, 94 consecutive patients were hospitalized for acute HF complicated by SVT. After 35 patients were excluded, the remaining 59 were divided into groups treated with diltiazem or landiolol. We investigated the blood pressure, heart rate, New York Heart Association classification, brain natriuretic peptide, chest X-ray film, echocardiographic findings (ejection fraction (EF)), time until commencement of oral BB therapy, and hospital stay. RESULTS: There were no significant between-group differences of heart rate, blood pressure, or the severity of HF. The time until commencing oral BB therapy was significantly shorter in the landiolol group compared with the diltiazem group (median: 2 vs. 4 days, P = 0.002), but there was no significant difference in hospital stay. This interval was significantly shorter in patients with a reduced EF in the landiolol group (median: 2 days) compared with those with a reduced EF in the diltiazem group (median: 5 days, P = 0.008), and patients with a preserved EF in the landiolol group tended to have a shorter interval (median: 2 days) than those with a preserved EF in the diltiazem group (median: 4 days, P = 0.092). CONCLUSIONS: Switching to oral BBs was accomplished earlier with landiolol than with diltiazem.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".