Safety of Outpatient Initiation of Disopyramide for Obstructive Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Disopyramide is effective in ameliorating symptoms in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy; however, its potential for proarrhythmic effect has raised concerns about its use in the ambulatory setting. The risk of initiating disopyramide in this manner has never been evaluated. METHODS AND RESULTS: All charts of patients seen in the outpatient hypertrophic cardiomyopathy clinic between 2010 and 2014 were screened for initiation of disopyramide and data were extracted. Disopyramide in our clinic is usually initiated at a dose of 300 mg daily and titrated during follow-up. A total of 2015 patients were seen in the clinic, including 168 who were started on disopyramide. There were no cardiac events within 3 months of disopyramide initiation. During long-term follow-up (255 patient-years; mean, 447 days; interquartile range, 201-779), only 2 patients developed cardiac events (syncope of unknown cause in both). Thirty-eight patients (23%) developed side effects of disopyramide and 18 (11%) stopped the drug because of these side effects. Of the patients continuing disopyramide long term, 63% remained free of septal reduction interventions at end of follow-up. Disopyramide at a dose of 300 mg prolonged the mean QTc interval by 19±23 ms; however, increasing the dose to 600 mg had no further significant effect. CONCLUSIONS: Initiation of disopyramide in the outpatient setting is safe and the risk of subsequent sudden cardiac death is low. Because of its QT-prolonging effect, precautions may be necessary in patients at higher risk of torsades de pointes.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".