MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2969615069 · doi:10.1111/acem.13669

A Multicenter Randomized Trial to Evaluate a Chemical‐first or Electrical‐first Cardioversion Strategy for Patients With Uncomplicated Acute Atrial Fibrillation

2019· article· en· W2969615069 on OpenAlexafffund
Frank Scheuermeyer, Gary Andolfatto, Jim Christenson, Cristina Villa‐Roel, Brian H. Rowe

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Emergency Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsLions Gate HospitalSouth Health CampusUniversity of Alberta HospitalUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineInterquartile rangeElectrical cardioversionAtrial fibrillationSinus rhythmCardioversionEmergency departmentRandomized controlled trialProcainamideAdverse effectRandomizationAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Emergency department (ED) patients with uncomplicated atrial fibrillation (AF) of less than 48 hours may be safely managed with rhythm control. Although both chemical-first and electrical-first strategies have been advocated, there are no comparative effectiveness data to guide clinicians. METHODS: score of 0 or 1 were randomized using concealed allocation in a 1:1 ratio to one of the following strategies: 1) chemical cardioversion with procainamide infusion, followed by electrical countershock if unsuccessful; or 2) electrical cardioversion, followed by procainamide infusion if unsuccessful. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients discharged within 4 hours of arrival. Secondary outcomes included ED length-of-stay (LOS); prespecified ED-based adverse events; and 30-day ED revisits, hospitalizations, strokes, deaths, and quality of life (QoL). RESULTS: scores. All patients were discharged home, with 83 (99%) in sinus rhythm. In the chemical-first group, 13 of 41 patients (32%) were discharged within 4 hours compared to 29 of 43 patients (67%) in the electrical-first group (p = 0.001). In the chemical-first group, the median ED LOS was 5.1 hours (interquartile range [IQR] = 3.5 to 5.9 hours) compared to 3.5 hours (IQR = 2.4 to 4.6 hours) in the electrical-first group, for a median difference of 1.2 hours (95% confidence interval = 0.4 to 2.0 hours, p < 0.001). No patients experienced stroke or death. All other outcomes, including adverse events, ED revisits, and QoL, were similar. CONCLUSION: In uncomplicated ED AF patients managed with rhythm control, chemical-first and electrical-first strategies both appear to be successful and well tolerated; however, an electrical-first strategy results in a significantly shorter ED LOS.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.313 · 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.

Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations31
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic Emergency MedicineSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207