Predictive value of various Doppler-derived parameters of atrial conduction time for successful atrial fibrillation ablation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Various Doppler-derived parameters of left atrial electrical remodeling have been demonstrated to predict recurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF) after AF ablation. The aim of this study was to compare three Doppler-derived measures of atrial conduction time in patients undergoing AF ablation, and to investigate their predictive value for successful procedure. In 32 prospectively enrolled patients undergoing the first AF ablation, atrial conduction time was estimated by measuring the time delay between the onset of P-wave on the surface ECG to the peak of the a'-wave on the pulsed-wave Doppler and color-coded tissue Doppler imaging of the left atrial lateral wall, and to the peak of the A-wave on the pulsed-wave Doppler of the mitral inflow. There was a significant difference in the baseline atrial conduction time measured by different echocardiographic techniques. Most (88%) patients had normal or only mildly dilated left atrium. At 6 months, 12 patients (38%) had recurrent AF/atrial tachycardia. The duration of history of AF was the only predictor of AF/atrial tachycardia recurrence following the first AF ablation (P=0.024; OR 1.023, CI 1.003-1.044). A combination of normal left atrial volume and history of paroxysmal AF of ≤48 months was associated with the best outcome. Predictive value of the Doppler derived parameters of atrial conduction time may be reduced in the early stages of left atrial remodeling. Future studies may determine which echocardiographic parameter correlates best with the extent of left atrial remodeling and is most predictive of successful AF ablation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".