MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408390592 · doi:10.1101/2025.03.06.25323532

Cardiac resynchronization therapy among adults with a systemic right ventricle: a multicenter experience

2025· preprint· en· W4408390592 on OpenAlexaff
Flavia Fusco, Giancarlo Scognamiglio, Mikael Dellborg, Payam Dehghani, Susan M. Fernandes, W. Aaron Kay, Jonathan Cramer, Isabelle Vonder Muhll, Eric V. Krieger, Fred H. Rodriguez, Luke J. Burchill, Jeremy Nicolarsen, Joseph Kay, Robert M. Kauling, Sangeeta Shah, Anthony Magalski, Joshua Wong, David S. Celermajer, David W. Baker, Jolien W. Roos‐Hesselink, Salil Ginde, Jamil Aboulhosn, Marissa C. Kuo, Christopher DeZorzi, Paul Khairy, Carla P. Rodriguez Monserrate, Shelby Kutty, William Wilson, Adam M. Lubert, Jasmine Grewal, Frank Han, Timothy B. Cotts, Stephen Pylypchuk, Tripti Gupta, Petra Antonová, Clare O’Donnell, Anitha S. John, Pastora Gallego, Alexandra C. van Dissel, Alexander R. Opotowsky, Elizabeth Yeung, Craig S. Broberg, Berardo Sarubbi

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalMontreal Heart InstituteUniversité de MontréalUniversity of AlbertaRegina General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardiac resynchronization therapyVentricleMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineMulticenter studyHeart failureEjection fractionRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy(CRT) is a key treatment for heart failure (HF) in acquired heart disease, but its benefits in adults with congenital heart disease and a systemic right ventricle (sRV) remain unclear. This study aimed to assess whether CRT improves outcomes in patients with sRV. Methods This analysis was part of an international, retrospective study of data from 33 centers including patients >18years with transposition of the great arteries (TGA) following atrial switch operation and congenitally corrected TGA (ccTGA). The primary endpoint was overall survival. The secondary endpoint was a composite of death, hospitalization for HF, heart transplant, mechanical support, ventricular tachycardia/ICD therapies. Results We identified 105 out of 1,721 patients(3.5%) who underwent CRT. Median follow-up after CRT implant was 4.6 [1.6-8] years. There was no overall QRS improvement (157±37 Vs 153±31 ms; p=0.2), which was limited to those with previous pacing (167±35 Vs 154± 28 ms; p=0.002). Following CRT, there was no significant change in B-type natriuretic peptide values, peakVO 2 , tricuspid regurgitation severity by echocardiography. CRT complications occurred in 10 (9.5%), though there were usually minor. Patients with CRT were propensity-matched to controls according to age, sex, morphology (ccTGA/TGA), presence of complex disease, previous HF admission and sRV dysfunction at baseline. At univariable analysis, CRT (OR 4.02-95% CI:1.48-10.89; p=0.006), older age, and moderate to severe sRV dysfunction at baseline were predictive of death. By multivariable analysis, CRT (OR 2.1-95% CI:1.2-3.8; p=0.008), age (OR 1.03-95% CI:1.01-1.06; p=0.001) and moderate to severe sRV dysfunction (OR 2.5-95% CI:1.3-4.4; p=0.002) were independently associated with poorer outcome. After matching using only patients with subpulmonary ventricle pacing as controls, overall survival was still worse in CRT group (p=0.0057). Conclusion In this retrospective study in the largest population thus far described with a sRV, CRT implant was not associated to improved survival, even after controlling for key confounders. Further studies with randomization are required to improve the selection of candidates with a sRV most likely to derive benefit from CRT, elucidate the optimal timing, and assess alternative strategies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies→French-language works237,207→