MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 21033: Effect of Baseline Antiarrhythmic Drug on Outcomes With Ablation in Ischemic Ventricular Tachycardia: A Vanish Substudy

2017· article· en· W2785590129 on OpenAlexaff
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 · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaRoyal Columbian HospitalRoyal Jubilee HospitalMcGill University Health CentreOttawa Heart InstituteMontreal Heart InstituteUniversité de MontréalQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreUniversité LavalLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAmiodaroneRefractory (planetary science)Internal medicineCardiologyVentricular tachycardiaSotalolEjection fractionMyocardial infarctionImplantable cardioverter-defibrillatorRefractory periodHeart failureAtrial fibrillation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The VANISH trial enrolled patients with prior myocardial infarction, an implanted defibrillator and ventricular tachycardia (VT) despite antiarrhythmic (AAD) drugs and compared the effectiveness of escalated AAD therapy to catheter ablation. We sought to compare the effectiveness of these interventions in patients with sotalol-refractory VT versus amiodarone-refractory VT. Methods: All patients enrolled in the VANISH study were included (n=259). VT recurrence was compared in patients despite amiodarone (amio-refractory) as compared to non-amiodarone drugs (sotalol-refractory). Outcomes were a composite of death, VT storm, appropriate ICD shock, each of these components and any ventricular arrhythmia. Results: At baseline, 169 (65.2%) were amio-refractory and 90 (34.7%) were sotalol-refractory (1 patient was enrolled with VT despite procainamide). Amio-refractory patients had more renal insufficiency (23.7% vs 10%, p=0.0008), worse NYHA class (82.3% II/III vs 65.5%, p=0.0003), and lower ejection fraction (29 ± 9.7% vs 35.2 ± 11%, p<0.0001). After adjusting for these baseline differences, there was no difference in mortality between the two groups. When examined within the escalated drug therapy arm, amio-refractory patients had a higher incidence of the composite outcome (HR 1.94, 95%CI (1.14, 3.29), p=0.0144), and a trend to higher mortality (HR 2.40, 95%CI (0.93, 6.22), p=0.07), while no difference in outcomes were observed within the ablation treatment group. Within the amio-refractory group, ablation resulted in significant reduction of any ventricular arrhythmia (HR 0.53, 95%CI (0.31, 0.9), p=0.020). Sotalol-refractory patients had trends towards higher mortality and VT storm with ablation, with no effect on ICD shocks. Conclusions: The benefit of catheter ablation is greater for patients with amio-refractory VT than for patients with sotalol-refractory VT who are then switched to amiodarone.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments→French-language works237,207→