MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3194445610 · doi:10.1148/radiol.2021210246

Right Ventricular Function at Cardiac MRI Predicts Cardiovascular Events in Patients with an Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator

2021· article· en· W3194445610 on OpenAlexaff
Laura Jiménez‐Juan, Nissan Ben‐Dov, Caio Vinicius Gonçalves Frazão, Nigel S. Tan, Sheldon M. Singh, Paul Dorian, Paul Angaran, Anastasia Oikonomou, Lan-Chau Kha, Idan Roifman, Binita Riya Chacko, Kim A. Connelly, Anish Kirpalani, Djeven P. Deva, Andrew T. Yan

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEjection fractionCardiologyInternal medicineImplantable cardioverter-defibrillatorHazard ratioSudden cardiac deathProportional hazards modelClinical endpointShock (circulatory)Heart failureConfidence intervalClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Right ventricular ejection fraction (RVEF) is an independent predictor of death and adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with various cardiac conditions. Purpose To investigate whether RVEF, measured with cardiac MRI, is a predictor of appropriate shock or death in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) recipients for primary and secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death. Materials and Methods This retrospective, multicenter, observational study included patients who underwent cardiac MRI before ICD implantation between January 2007 and May 2017. Right ventricular end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes and RVEF were measured with cardiac MRI. The primary end point was a composite of all-cause mortality or appropriate ICD shock. The secondary end point was all-cause mortality. The association between RVEF and primary and secondary outcomes was evaluated by using multivariable Cox regression analysis. Potential interactions were tested between primary prevention, ischemic cause, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and RVEF. Results Among 411 patients (mean age ± standard deviation, 60 years; 315 men) during a median follow-up of 63 months, 143 (35%) patients experienced an appropriate ICD shock or died. In univariable analysis, lower RVEF was associated with greater risks for appropriate ICD shock or death and for death alone (log-rank trend test, P = .003 and .005 respectively). In multivariable Cox regression analysis adjusting for age at ICD implantation, LVEF, ICD indication (primary vs secondary), ischemic heart disease, and late gadolinium enhancement, RVEF was an independent predictor of the primary outcome (hazard ratio [HR], 1.21 per 10% lower RVEF; 95% CI: 1.04, 1.41; P = .01) and all-cause mortality (HR, 1.25 per 10% lower RVEF; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.55; P = .04). No evidence of significant interactions was found between RVEF and primary or secondary prevention (P = .49), ischemic heart disease (P = .78), and LVEF (P = .29). Conclusion Right ventricular ejection fraction measured with cardiac MRI was a predictor of appropriate implantable cardioverter-defibrillator shock or death. © RSNA, 2021 See also the editorial by Nazarian and Zghaib in this issue. An earlier incorrect version of this article appeared online. This article was corrected on August 24, 2021.

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 score0.200
Threshold uncertainty score0.829

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRadiologySame topicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studiesFrench-language works237,207