Comparative Effectiveness of Wide Antral Versus Ostial Pulmonary Vein Isolation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For the past decade, electric pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) has become a procedure implemented worldwide for the treatment of atrial fibrillation. Currently, 2 main approaches are used for PVI: ostial isolation of the PVs and wide antral PVI. The aims of this systematic review are to evaluate the relative merits of each technique with a pooled comparative analysis of efficacy and complications. METHODS AND RESULTS: Studies were identified by searching electronic databases for studies on ostial versus antral PVI. Information was extracted from each included trial. Odds ratio was the primary measure of treatment effect or side effects. The proportion of patients with recurrences of atrial fibrillation or other atrial tachyarrhythmias was evaluated at the end of the follow-up periods in 12 trials, including 1183 patients. The recurrence rate of total supraventricular arrhythmias was significantly lower in wide antral than in segmental PVI group (odds ratio, 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-0.56; P<0.00001). Atrial fibrillation recurrence was significantly lower in the wide antral group (odds ratio, 0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.24-0.46; P<0,00001). A trend toward a higher incidence of left atrial tachycardia occurrence in the wide antral circumferential ablation group was detected, which did not reach statistical significance (odds ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-2.69; P=0.13). CONCLUSIONS: Our primary finding is that PVI performed with a wide antral approach is more effective than ostial PVI in achieving freedom from total atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence at long-term follow-up.
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.
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) | 0.002 | 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 it