Persistent Atrial Fibrillation is Associated with Inability to Recover Atrial Contractility after MAZE IV Surgery in Rheumatic Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: MAZE IV surgery is effective in restoring sinus rhythm (SR) and atrial contraction (AC) in patients with nonrheumatic persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). However, there is less information on its effectiveness to restore AC in patients with rheumatic disease. AIMS: To assess the effectiveness of the MAZE IV surgery in restoring AC in patients with rheumatic disease and long persistent AF. METHODS: Prospective, consecutive study in patients who underwent cardiovascular surgery and had long persistent AF in whom MAZE IV surgery was performed. The presence of AC was assessed by lateral mitral annulus tissue Doppler. RESULTS: A total of 75 patients were included. Mean age 60 years (±11.7); 27 men (36%). AF duration was 63 months (±34.1). Primary indication for surgery: rheumatic mitral stenosis 67 patients and mitral insufficiency eight patients. Mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 51.8% (±12.1) and mean left atrial area was 37 cm(2) (±10.3). After a mean follow-up of 28 months (±9.3), 69 patients remained alive and 59 were in SR. AC was detected in 37.3% (Group A) and absent in 62.7% (Group B). The mean difference between groups was the high prevalence of AF longer than 5 years in group B (P = 0.000001). There were no differences related to left atrial size, LVEF, and age. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with rheumatic disease, the absence of correlation between SR recovery and AC recovery post MAZE IV surgery is significant. A history of long persistent AF lasting more than 5 years was a strong predictor for the absence of AC.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".