Rationale and Design of the Randomized Bayesian Multicenter COME-TAVI Trial in Patients With a New Onset Left Bundle Branch Block
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(COME-TAVI) trial, consenting patients with new-onset LBBB that persists on day 2 after TAVI, meeting exclusion/inclusion criteria, are randomized to an electrophysiological study (EPS)-guided approach or 30-day electrocardiographic monitoring. In the EPS-guided approach, patients with a His to ventricle (HV) interval ≥ 65 ms undergo permanent pacemaker implantation. Patients randomized to noninvasive monitoring receive a wearable continuous electrocardiographic recording and transmitting device for 30 days. Follow-up will be performed at 3, 6, and 12 months. The primary endpoint is a composite outcome designed to capture net clinical benefit. The endpoint incorporates major consequences of both strategies in patients with new-onset LBBB after TAVI, as follows: (i) sudden cardiac death; (ii) syncope; (iii) atrioventricular conduction disorder requiring a pacemaker (for a class I or IIa indication); and (iv) complications related to the pacemaker or EPS. The trial incorporates a Bayesian design with a noninformative prior, outcome-adaptive randomization (initially 1:1), and 2 prespecified interim analyses once 25% and 50% of the anticipated number of primary endpoints are reached. The trial is event-driven, with an anticipated upper limit of 452 patients required to reach 77 primary outcome events over 12 months of follow-up. In summary, the aim of this Bayesian multicentre randomized trial is to compare 2 management strategies in patients with new-onset LBBB post-TAVI-an EPS-guided approach vs noninvasive 30-day monitoring. Trial registration number: NCT03303612.
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 | 0.057 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.005 |
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".