Pulmonary Vein Isolation With Incomplete Antral Ablation Lines: Is More Ablation Necessary? Results of a Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A full circumferential set of antral lesions is not always required for bidirectional pulmonary vein conduction block. It is unknown whether a partial lesion set that isolates the veins will have clinical success rates similar to a full circumferential lesion set, and if procedural times or procedural risk will be affected. METHODS: We performed a prospective, randomized clinical trial to test the hypothesis that a partial lesion set that isolates the pulmonary veins has comparable clinical success rate and shorter procedure times compared to a strategy of completing the circumferential lesion set once the veins are isolated. RESULTS: A total of 119 patients were enrolled, 59 randomized to circumferential ablation, and 60 to segmental. Mean age was 58.3 ± 10.1, 77% male. Mean procedure time was 221.0 ± 46.9 minutes in circumferential and 224.7 ± 51.3 in segmental (P = 0.68). Twelve-month freedom from AF recurrence was 61.3% overall, 64.4% in circumferential, and 58.3% in segmental (P = 0.50). Among 25 segmental patients with AF recurrence, 23 underwent second ablation. Among 33 areas of conduction recovery, 23 (70%) occurred in segments ablated at first procedure and 10 (30%) in segments not previously ablated, suggesting reversible conduction block from edema. CONCLUSION: No difference in AF recurrence or procedure time is detectable in a sample of 119 patients randomized to segmental or circumferential antral ablation to achieve pulmonary vein isolation. Second ablation procedures confirmed that some antral sites do not require ablation. A segmental approach results in unacceptably high rates of untargeted or recovered antral sites to make this approach feasible.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".