MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Defibrillator shocks and their effect on objective asian patient outcomes: results of the painfree SST clinical trial

2024· article· en· W4403822478 on OpenAlexaff
Yusuke Kondo, Samuel F. Sears, Gavin Bart, Laurence D. Sterns, Edward J. Schloss, Albert Meijer, Angelo Auricchio, Takashi Kurita

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsRoyal Jubilee Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialClinical trialPhysical therapyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) reduces mortality in patients at risk of sudden cardiac death. However, the effect of ICD shock on device-measured activity is unknown. The aim of this analysis was to analyze the acute and long-term effects of ICD shock on objective behavioral data. Methods The PainFree SST study was a prospective, multicenter, global study that enrolled 2770 patients including 225 from from Asia (181 from Japan, 25 from India, and 19 from Malaysia). Patient physical activity was determined from the device built-in accelerometer. The device translates the accelerometer output into a count of active minutes, which is stored as a daily total value in device memory for a rolling window of 425 days. Obviously, activity is measured only after device implantation. Early after implant, activity is reduced due to the procedure and thus not representative. Therefore, no baseline can be reported for activity. The follow-up activity data was analyzed with a linear mixed model, with a random effect for patient and an auto-regressive correlation matrix for subsequent measurements of individual patients. Results Figure 1 shows average daily activity between 90 days before and 90 days after a shock. The dashed vertical line indicates the day of shock. Both patients from Asia and from other countries show a drop in activity after a shock with recovery in the subsequent 30-60 days. The curve for Asian patients is more variable than the curve for other countries due to the lower number of patients (there were 33 Asian patients with shocks contributing data). Figure 2 shows average daily activity before and after ATP therapy. Any post shock measurement is excluded. Contrary to the temporary reduction in activity around a shock (Figure 1), ATP therapies do not seem to have an impact on activity. In patients from the other countries, activity is significantly reduced when patients are hospitalized (-66.3 minutes/day, p<0.0001), but not in Asian patients (-5.1 minutes/day, p=0.71). Both in Asian and other countries, activity is significantly reduced after an ICD shock (Asian: -47.5 minutes/day, p=0.0002; Other countries: -21.5 minutes/day, p<0.0001). The effect of shock for Asian is greater than the other countries (p=0.054). In the month after the shock there is a significant recovery, +34.8 minutes/day in Asian patients (p=0.0077) and +7.7 minutes/day in patients from other countries (p=0.031). The recovery is trended to be bigger in Asian patients (p=0.058). Conclusions ICD shocks have a lasting adverse impact on objective, device-measured physical activity, particularly among Asian individuals. Successful management of patients with an ICD necessitates specific attention to clinically relevant behavioral outcomes, aiming to expedite recovery and facilitate a return to activities of daily living, with a particular focus on the Asian population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation→French-language works237,207→