Procedural and biophysical indicators of durable pulmonary vein isolation during cryoballoon ablation of atrial fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Limited data exist on procedural and biophysical indicators of pulmonary vein (PV) isolation durability after the cryoballoon ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the procedural and biophysical characteristics associated with late PV reconnection (PVR) and durable PV isolation (PVI) after cryoablation using the currently available second-generation cryoballoon. METHODS: Data from 435 PVs targeted in 112 consecutive patients who underwent a repeat procedure 14 ± 3 months after an index cryoablation of AF were examined. RESULTS: Altogether, 111 PVs (25.5%) in 71 patients (63.4%) demonstrated PVR, whereas 324 PVs (74.5%) exhibited PVI. The number and duration of cryoballoon applications did not differ between PVR and PVI. However, the time to PV isolation (time to effect) was considerably shorter (39.1 ± 11.7 seconds vs 67.6 ± 19.7 seconds; P < .001), the balloon temperature at time to effect was significantly warmer (-32.1°C ± 7.8°C vs -39.4°C ± 5.8°C; P < .001), the balloon nadir temperature was slightly cooler (-48.7°C ± 4.6°C vs -47.8°C ± 2.9°C; P = .034), and the total thaw time (56.5 ± 25.4 seconds vs 34.8 ± 9.1 seconds; P < .001) and interval thaw times at 0°C (iTT0; 14.8 ± 10.9 seconds vs 7.1 ± 2.0 seconds; P < .001) and 15°C (54.2 ± 25.4 seconds vs 33.3 ± 9.1 seconds; P < .001) were notably longer with PVI than with PVR. However, only a time to effect of ≤60 seconds and an iTT0 of ≥10 seconds emerged as significant predictors of PV isolation durability. Consequently, in a multivariate model, presence of both criteria predicted <1% and their mere absence ~75% likelihood of PVR. CONCLUSION: A time to effect of ≤60 seconds and an iTT0 of ≥10 seconds significantly predict PV isolation durability after the cryoballoon ablation of AF. If both criteria are met, the likelihood of PV reconnection may be exceedingly low.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".