MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2602777383 · doi:10.1161/circep.116.004875

Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Reduces Ventricular Arrhythmias in Primary but Not Secondary Prophylactic Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Patients

2017· article· en· W2602777383 on OpenAlexaff
John L. Sapp, Ratika Parkash, George A. Wells, Elizabeth Yetisir, Martin J. Gardner, Jeff S. Healey, Bernard Thibault, Laurence D. Sterns, David H. Birnie, Pablo B. Nery, Soori Sivakumaran, Vidal Essebag, Paul Dorian, Anthony Tang

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreRoyal Jubilee HospitalDalhousie UniversityUniversity of TorontoPopulation Health Research InstituteUniversity of AlbertaMontreal Heart InstituteWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineImplantable cardioverter-defibrillatorCardiac resynchronization therapyCardiologyInternal medicineHeart failureVentricular fibrillationSecondary preventionEjection fraction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background— The RAFT (Resynchronization in Ambulatory Heart Failure Trial) demonstrated that cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduced both mortality and heart failure hospitalizations in patients with functional class II or III heart failure and widened QRS. We examined the influence of CRT on ventricular arrhythmias in patients with primary versus secondary prophylaxis defibrillator indications. Methods and Results— All ventricular arrhythmias among RAFT study participants were downloaded and adjudicated by 2 blinded reviewers with an overreader for disagreements and committee review for remaining discrepancies. Incidence of ventricular arrhythmias among patients randomized to CRT-D versus implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) were compared within the groups of patients treated for primary prophylaxis and for secondary prophylaxis. Of 1798 enrolled patients, 1764 had data available for adjudication and were included. Of these, 1531 patients were implanted for primary prophylaxis, while 233 patients were implanted for secondary prophylaxis; 884 patients were randomized to ICD and 880 to CRT-D. During 5953.6 patient-years of follow-up, there were 11 278 appropriate ICD detections of ventricular arrhythmias. In the primary prophylaxis group, CRT-D significantly reduced incidence ventricular arrhythmias in comparison to ICD (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.74–0.99; P =0.044). This effect was not seen in the secondary prophylaxis group (hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 0.82–1.58; P =0.45). CRT-D was not associated with significant differences in overall ventricular arrhythmia burden in either group. Conclusions— CRT reduced the rate of onset of new ventricular arrhythmias detected by ICDs in patients without a history of prior ventricular arrhythmias. This effect was not observed among patients who had prior ventricular arrhythmias. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00251251.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations46
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Arrhythmia and ElectrophysiologySame topicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studiesFrench-language works237,207