Inducibility of Atrial Fibrillation with a Synchronized External Low Energy Shock Post‐Pulmonary Vein Isolation Predicts Recurrent Atrial Fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inducibility of atrial fibrillation (AF) with burst pacing after pulmonary vein (PV) isolation is associated with recurrent AF. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated whether an external 30 Joule (J) shock synchronized to the R wave, during the vulnerable period of atrial repolarization, is able to risk-stratify patients further for AF recurrence after PV isolation. METHODS: One hundred and sixteen consecutive patients underwent PV isolation for AF. Atrial burst pacing was performed after PV isolation. In patients without AF induced by burst pacing, a biphasic external 30 J shock synchronized to the R wave was delivered as a further test for inducible AF. Patients were followed for a mean of 16 months, and recurrent AF was defined as more than 10 sec of AF on ambulatory monitoring. RESULTS: AF was induced in 19 (16%) of patients with burst pacing. Eighty-one patients who were noninducible with burst pacing had a 30 J shock administered, which induced AF in 16 (20%). In follow-up, 21% of patients who were noninducible with burst pacing or low-energy shock vs 54% who were inducible with either test developed recurrent AF at one year (HR 3.18, P = 0.0004 on multivariate analysis). Among patients who were noninducible with burst pacing, 18% who were noninducible with a low-energy shock vs 60% who were inducible with shock developed recurrent AF at one year (HR = 4.63, P = 0.0006 on multivariate analysis). CONCLUSION: Inducibility of AF by a 30 J shock delivered during atrial repolarization after PV isolation may predict AF recurrence. Evaluation of inducibility of AF with burst pacing and a biphasic external synchronized shock after PV isolation may help guide postprocedure management.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".