MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2957551058 · doi:10.1016/j.ijcha.2019.100398

Vernakalant and electrical cardioversion for AF – Safe and effective

2019· article· en· W2957551058 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Alexander Simon, Jan Niederdoeckl, Karin Janata, Alexander Spiel, Nikola Schuetz, Sebastian Schnaubelt, Harald Herkner, F Cacioppo, Anton N. Laggner, Hans Domanovits

Bibliographic record

VenueIJC Heart & Vasculature · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOesterreichische NationalbankCardiome Pharma Corp.Spectrum Pharmaceuticals
KeywordsMedicineElectrical cardioversionCardioversionCardiologyAtrial fibrillationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: Rapid restoration of sinus rhythm is an integral part of the management of recent-onset atrial fibrillation. We aimed to assess safety and efficacy of vernakalant, a multi-channel blocking agent, in combination with external electrical cardioversion. METHODS: This prospective cohort study comprised 230 patients (female 35%; median age 50 IQR 42-55) with recent-onset AF presenting to a university tertiary care center during a 6-year period. Management included intravenous vernakalant followed by electrical cardioversion in case of pharmacological failure. RESULTS: Within 11 min (IQR 8-29), sinus rhythm could be restored by sole pharmacological management in 167 patients (73%). A left ventricular function lower than 55% (OR 3.51 (1.45-8.52)) and prior atrial fibrillation episodes being classified as persistent (OR 2.33 (1.13-4.80)) were significant predictors for non-response to vernakalant. Electrical cardioversion was successful in all patients but one within 196 min (IQR 149-300) of administration of first dosage of vernakalant. No serious adverse events could be observed. 3 patients needed further in-patient care. CONCLUSION: Management of recent-onset atrial fibrillation consisting of intravenous vernakalant followed by electrical cardioversion in case of failure appears safe and efficacious. Achieving a rapid conversion, this approach could potentially save resources and costs.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIJC Heart & VasculatureSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207