MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2887430283 · doi:10.1016/j.hrthm.2018.08.015

Continuous monitoring after second-generation cryoballoon ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices

2018· article· en· W2887430283 sur OpenAlexaff
Rajin Choudhury, Hugo‐Enrique Coutiño, Radu Darciuc, Erwin Ströker, Valentina De Regibus, Giacomo Mugnai, Gaetano Paparella, Muryio Terasawa, Varnavas Varnavas, Francesca Salghetti, Saverio Iacopino, Ken Takarada, Juan‐Pablo Abugattas, Juan Sieira, Pedro Brugada, Carlo de Asmundis, Gian‐Battista Chierchia

Notice bibliographique

RevueHeart Rhythm · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Établissements canadiensQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre
Organismes subventionnairesBiotronikBoston Scientific CorporationMedtronicAbbott Laboratories
Mots-clésMedicineParoxysmal atrial fibrillationCardiologyAtrial fibrillationInternal medicineAblation

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background The second-generation cryoballoon (CB) is effective in achieving pulmonary vein isolation. Continuous monitoring would eliminate any over- or underestimated freedom from atrial fibrillation (AF) postablation. Objective The purpose of this study was to differentiate between arrhythmias occurring after cryoballoon ablation (CBA), detecting true AF in symptomatic patients and detecting silent subclinical AF. Methods Between June 2012 and January 2015, 54 patients with a preexisting cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) who had undergone CBA for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) were included in our retrospective study. Regular CIED controls, physical examination, and ECG recordings were performed by an experienced cardiologist blinded to the ablation procedure. Data on any hospitalization during follow-up were gathered. Patients were encouraged to note all clinical symptoms during follow-up. Results Continuous monitoring showed a success rate of 83.3% after 1 year and 75.93% after 3 years of follow-up. During the first year, 68% of episodes of palpitations after ablation were due to sinus tachycardia, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia, or supraventricular tachycardia. AF recurrence was detected in 15.6% of asymptomatic patients during follow-up. Total AF burden post-CBA had decreased to 0.64% ± 4.34% (P <.001) during long-term follow-up of 3.3 years. Conclusion Although this is a selected group of patients with a preexisting CIED, continuous monitoring showed freedom from AF in 83.3% of patients post-CBA after 1 year and 75.93% after 3 years of follow-up. The second-generation cryoballoon (CB) is effective in achieving pulmonary vein isolation. Continuous monitoring would eliminate any over- or underestimated freedom from atrial fibrillation (AF) postablation. The purpose of this study was to differentiate between arrhythmias occurring after cryoballoon ablation (CBA), detecting true AF in symptomatic patients and detecting silent subclinical AF. Between June 2012 and January 2015, 54 patients with a preexisting cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) who had undergone CBA for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) were included in our retrospective study. Regular CIED controls, physical examination, and ECG recordings were performed by an experienced cardiologist blinded to the ablation procedure. Data on any hospitalization during follow-up were gathered. Patients were encouraged to note all clinical symptoms during follow-up. Continuous monitoring showed a success rate of 83.3% after 1 year and 75.93% after 3 years of follow-up. During the first year, 68% of episodes of palpitations after ablation were due to sinus tachycardia, nonsustained ventricular tachycardia, or supraventricular tachycardia. AF recurrence was detected in 15.6% of asymptomatic patients during follow-up. Total AF burden post-CBA had decreased to 0.64% ± 4.34% (P <.001) during long-term follow-up of 3.3 years. Although this is a selected group of patients with a preexisting CIED, continuous monitoring showed freedom from AF in 83.3% of patients post-CBA after 1 year and 75.93% after 3 years of follow-up.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,050
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,518

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,021
Tête enseignante GPT0,283
Écart entre enseignants0,263 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations9
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHeart RhythmMême sujetAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesTravaux en français237 207