Comparative Effectiveness of Wide Antral Versus Ostial Pulmonary Vein Isolation
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.
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 | 0.013 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".