Comorbidities and Clinical Response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Patient-Level Meta-Analysis from Eight Clinical Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Patients with heart failure usually have several other medical conditions that might alter the effects of interventions. We investigated whether the burden of comorbidity modified the clinical response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). METHODS AND RESULTS: Original patient-level data from eight randomized trials exploring the effects of CRT versus no CRT were pooled (BLOCK-HF, MIRACLE, MIRACLE-ICD, MIRACLE-ICD II, RAFT, COMPANION, MADIT-CRT and REVERSE). A prior history of the following comorbidities was considered: episodic or persistent atrial fibrillation (n = 920), coronary artery disease (n = 3732), diabetes (n = 2171), and hypertension (n = 3353). Patients were classified into three groups based on the number of comorbidities: 0, 1-2, or ≥3. The outcomes of interest were time to all-cause mortality and time to the composite outcome of heart failure hospitalization (HFH) or all-cause mortality. Outcomes were evaluated within each comorbidity group using a Bayesian hierarchical Weibull survival regression model. Of 6324 patients, 970 (15%) had no comorbidities, 4052 (64%) had 1-2 and 1302 (21%) had ≥3 comorbidities. The adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for CRT versus no CRT for all-cause mortality in the overall cohort was 0.79 (95% credible interval [CI] 0.68-0.93) (p = 0.010); for no comorbidities the aHR was 0.54 (95% CI 0.34-0.86), for 1-2 comorbidities was 0.81 (95% CI 0.67-0.97) and for ≥3 comorbidities was 0.83 (95% CI 0.64-1.07) (no significant interaction between CRT and comorbidity burden: p = 0.13). For the endpoint of HFH or all-cause mortality, the aHR for the overall cohort was 0.74 (95% CI 0.65-0.84) (p = 0.001), for no comorbidities was 0.69 (95% CI 0.50-0.94), for 1-2 comorbidities was 0.77 (95% CI 0.66-0.90) and for ≥3 comorbidities was 0.68 (95% CI 0.55-0.82) (no significant interaction between CRT and comorbidity burden: p = 0.081). CONCLUSION: In a meta-analysis of patient-level data from eight major trials, the totality of evidence suggests that CRT reduces HFH and/or all-cause mortality even when several comorbid diseases are present. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00271154, NCT00251251, NCT00267098, NCT00180271.
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 | 0.022 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.043 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".