Dissociated pulmonary vein rhythm may predict the acute pulmonary vein reconnection post-isolation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Dissociated pulmonary vein rhythm (PVD) has been taken as a signal of PV isolation, but has been questioned recently; we assessed the relationship between PVD and acute PV reconnection after PV isolation in this study. METHODS AND RESULTS: Eighty-five consecutive patients (52 males; mean age 59±11 years) were referred for catheter ablation of drug-refractory paroxysmal AF. Following PV isolation, the presence and cycle length of PVD were recorded. Pulmonary veins were classified into veins with PVD (Group 1) and veins without PVD (Group 2). Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) was then injected during isoproterenol infusion to reveal dormant conduction gap(s), and PVs were further remapped at 30 min post-isolation. Totally, PVD was observed in 68% (58 of 85) of patients and 34.7% (112 of 323) of PVs. Seventy-nine (24.5%) PVs were found acutely reconnected, including 48 veins revealed by ATP induction [ATP(+)PV] and 64 veins by reassessment after 30 min post-isolation [Time(+)PV]. Time(+)PVs were observed more frequently in Group 1 than those in Group 2 (31.3 vs. 13.7%, P<0.01), but no significant difference was found in the occurrence of ATP(+)PVs between Group 1 and Group 2 (17.9 vs. 13.3%, P=0.27). The sequences of the PVD and the acutely reconnected PV potential were similar in 87.5% of veins. After PV re-isolation, 70% (28 of 40) of previously documented PVD disappeared. CONCLUSION: The occurrence of PVD after PV isolation was closely related to the acute PV reconnection after 30 min post-isolation.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".