The validity of current implantable cardioverter-defibrillator guidelines in a real-world population of adults with congenital heart disease: A single-center experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: Sudden cardiac death (SCD) is a major cause of mortality in adults with congenital heart disease (ACHD). The role of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICDs) in preventing SCD has been established, however, robust, clinical evidence-based guidelines are lacking in ACHD. The aim of this study was to evaluate the ICD guidelines in ACHD patients. Methods and Results: A total of 131 ACHD patients (male: n = 96 (73.3%), mean age: 42.8 ± 14.7 years, mean follow-up: 40.9 ± 28.3 months) undergoing ICDs implantation between 2010 and 2017 were reviewed. Sixty-nine patients (52.6%) received ICDs for a primary prevention indication. 122 (93.3%) patients had congenital heart disease of moderate to severe complexity. CRT-D (implantable cardiac resynchronization defibrillator) was implanted in 55 (42.0%) patients. During follow-up, 23 patients (17.6%) received appropriate ICD therapy. According to the current guideline (PACES/HRS 2014), 84 (64.1%), 8 (6.1%), and 39 (29.8%) could be classified as Class Ⅰ, Class Ⅱa, and Class Ⅱb indication, respectively. Compared to patients with Class Ⅱa and IIb indication, those with Class Ⅰ indication received more appropriate therapy (P = 0.030). Multivariate analysis showed that age (per 10-years decrease; P = 0.015, HR 1.254 CI; 1.045-1.505) and creatinine (per 100-μmol/L increase; P = 0.019, HR 1.555 CI; 1.076-2.247) were associated with appropriate therapy. Conclusion: Implantation of ICDs for preventing SCD based on current guidelines is reasonable. For patients with a borderline indication, younger age and renal dysfunction may aid in the selection of ICDs candidates.
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 | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".