Associations between cardiac resynchronization therapy and clinical outcomes according to the atrial fibrillation status in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To evaluate in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) the association between patient characteristics and likelihood of receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), as well as between CRT and clinical outcomes, according to comorbid atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients in the Swedish Heart Failure (HF) Registry who met the guidelines' recommendation for CRT between 2014 and 2022 were included. The primary endpoint was the composite of time to first HF hospitalization or cardiovascular (CV) death. Secondary endpoints were its individual components, all-cause death, and the total number of HF hospitalizations. Out of 3530 patients with HFrEF and an indication for CRT, 24.7% received a CRT. A history of or concomitant AF were observed in 51.6% of patients. AF was not associated with the likelihood of receiving a CRT, and the patient characteristics independently associated with CRT were consistent regardless of AF, except for CRT being less likely implanted in patients with valvular disease without AF, and more likely among those with AF and university (vs. compulsory) education. Regardless of AF, CRT use was associated with a lower adjusted risk of CV death/first HF hospitalization [hazard ratio (HR): 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64-0.79], of its individual components, and of all-cause death (HR: 0.72, 95% CI 0.64-0.81), but not with total number of HF hospitalizations. CONCLUSION: A diagnosis of AF was not associated with the likelihood of receiving CRT in real-world HF care, nor did it affect the association between CRT and lower risk of clinical outcomes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".