Effect of coronary revascularization on long‐term clinical outcomes in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and recurrent ventricular arrhythmia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with ventricular tachycardia (VT) postmyocardial infarction (MI) are a higher risk group with significant morbidity and mortality. We examined the impact of prior coronary revascularization on clinical outcomes in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and VT. METHODS: The VANISH trial randomized 259 patients with prior MI and antiarrhythmic drug-refractory VT to receive escalated medical therapy or catheter ablation. Clinical outcomes were compared according to whether patients have undergone prior revascularization procedures. The primary outcome was a composite of death, appropriate implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) shock, or VT storm. The secondary outcomes included elements of the primary outcome, hospitalization, and any ventricular arrhythmia. RESULTS: 190 patients (73%) had prior coronary revascularization. Revascularization group had more men (97% vs 83%; P = 0.0003) and patients in that group were older (mean age 69.3 ± 7.6 vs 66.7 ± 9.2; P = 0.04), had more renal insufficiency (22.6% vs 8.7%; P = 0.01), and were more likely to have an implanted cardiac resynchronization device (23% vs 10%, P = 0.03) as compared with the nonrevascularized patients. There were no significant differences in baseline medication use. There was a trend toward fewer hospitalizations in the revascularization group (64% vs 77%; P = 0.07); there were no differences in the individual outcomes of mortality, VT storm, ICD shocks, recurrent MI, or cardiac failure. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of patients with an ischemic cause for VT, a history of prior coronary revascularization was not associated with a reduction in ventricular arrhythmia or mortality.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".