MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782483490 · doi:10.1161/circep.117.005663

Effect of Baseline Antiarrhythmic Drug on Outcomes With Ablation in Ischemic Ventricular Tachycardia

2018· article· en· W2782483490 on OpenAlexafffund
Ratika Parkash, Isabelle Nault, Léna Rivard, Lorne J. Gula, Vidal Essebag, Pablo B. Nery, Stanley Tung, Jean‐Marc Raymond, Laurence D. Sterns, Steve Doucette, George A. Wells, Anthony Tang, William G. Stevenson, John L. Sapp

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments
Canadian institutionsInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCentre International de Recherche sur le Cancer
KeywordsCardiologyMedicineInternal medicineAblationVentricular tachycardiaDrugBaseline (sea)AnesthesiaPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The VANISH trial (Ventricular Tachycardia Ablation Versus Escalated Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy in Ischemic Heart Disease) compared the effectiveness of escalated antiarrhythmic drug therapy to catheter ablation in patients with prior myocardial infarction, an implanted defibrillator, and ventricular tachycardia (VT). The effectiveness of these interventions in patients on sotalol versus amiodarone was compared. Methods and Results Analysis was conducted based on whether patients had recurrent VT, despite amiodarone (amio-refractory) or nonamiodarone drugs (sotalol-refractory). Outcomes included death, VT storm, appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator shock, and any ventricular arrhythmia. At baseline, 169 (65.2%) were amio-refractory, and 90 (34.7%) were sotalol-refractory (1 patient on procainamide rather than sotalol). Amio-refractory patients had more renal insufficiency (23.7% versus 10%; P =0.0008), worse New York Heart Association class (82.3% II/III versus 65.5%; P =0.0003), and lower ejection fraction (29±9.7% versus 35.2±11%; P <0.0001). Within the amio-refractory group, ablation resulted in reduction of any ventricular arrhythmia compared with escalated drug therapy (hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.31–0.9), P =0.020). Sotalol-refractory patients had trends toward higher mortality and VT storm with ablation, with no effect on implantable cardioverter defibrillator shocks. Within the escalated drug therapy arm, amio-refractory patients had a higher rate of the composite outcome (hazard ratio, 1.94; 95% confidence interval, 1.14–3.29; P =0.0144) and a trend to higher mortality (hazard ratio, 2.40; 95% confidence interval, 0.93–6.22; P =0.07), whereas mortality was not different between amio- and sotalol-refractory patients within the ablation treatment group. Conclusions Patients with amio-refractory VT have a higher rate of ventricular arrhythmia and mortality than those with sotalol-refractory VT and derive greater benefit of catheter ablation than for patients with sotalol-refractory VT who are switched to amiodarone. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00905853.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.666

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.243 · 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.

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

Citations22
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Arrhythmia and ElectrophysiologySame topicCardiac Arrhythmias and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207