Persistent Atrial Fibrillation Ablation in Females: Insight from the MAGIC‐AF Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation is less frequently performed in women when compared to men. There are conflicting data on the safety and efficacy of AF ablation in women. The objective of this study was to compare the clinical characteristics and outcomes in a contemporary cohort of men and women undergoing persistent AF ablation procedures. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 182 men and 53 women undergoing a first-ever persistent AF catheter ablation procedure in The Modified Ablation Guided by Ibutilide Use in Chronic Atrial Fibrillation (MAGIC-AF) trial were evaluated. Clinical and procedural characteristics were compared between each gender. The primary efficacy endpoint was the 1-year single procedure freedom from atrial arrhythmia off anti-arrhythmic drugs. Women undergoing catheter ablation procedures were older than men (P < 0.001). The duration of AF and associated co-morbidities were similar between both genders. Single procedure drug-free atrial arrhythmia recurrence occurred in 53% of the cohort with no difference based on gender (men = 54%, women = 53%; P = 1.0). Procedural (P = 0.04), fluoroscopic (P = 0.02), and ablation times (P = 0.003) were shorter in women compared to men. Periprocedural complications and postablation improvement in quality of life were similar between men and women. CONCLUSION: Women undergoing a first-ever persistent AF ablation procedure were older but had similar clinical outcomes and complications when compared with men.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".