Pulmonary Vein Isolation Using a Pace-Capture–Guided Versus an Adenosine-Guided Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation recurrence after pulmonary vein (PV) isolation is associated with PV to left atrium reconduction. We prospectively studied the use of 2 procedural techniques designed to facilitate identification of residual gaps within the index ablation line. METHODS AND RESULTS: After wide circumferential PV isolation, 40 patients received additional ablation targeted at locations of left atrial capture during high-output pacing (pace-capture group), while 40 patients underwent adenosine testing with targeted ablation at sites of dormant conduction (adenosine group). Patients were followed up at 3, 6, and 12 months. After PV isolation, high-output pace-capture was documented in 39 PVs (25%; 50% of patients) in the pace-capture group. Dormant conduction was unmasked in 34 PVs (22%; 53% of patients) in the adenosine group. A subset of 25 patients in the pace-capture group underwent adenosine testing without targeted ablation of dormant conduction. In these patients, only 10 out of 86 PVs (11.6%; 24% of patients) demonstrated dormant conduction after the elimination of local pace-capture. At a follow-up of 329±124 days, the single procedure off antiarrhythmic drug freedom from recurrent atrial fibrillation was 67.5% in the adenosine group and 65.0% in the pace-capture group (P=0.814). Procedure duration and fluoroscopy time were significantly longer in the pace-capture group (P=0.002 and P<0.001), whereas radiofrequency ablation time was comparable (P=0.192). CONCLUSIONS: The use of high-output pacing post-PV isolation results in a significant reduction in the incidence of dormant conduction with a comparable long-term freedom from recurrent atrial fibrillation (versus adenosine-guided ablation). The use of these approaches requires evaluation in a long-term prospective randomized study. [corrected].
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".