Termination of persistent atrial fibrillation during pulmonary vein isolation: insight from the MAGIC-AF trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Controversy on the optimal ablation strategy for persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) exists with limited work evaluating a strategy of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) alone when AF terminates during PVI. Thirty-five patients had AF termination during PVI in the Modified Ablation Guided by Ibutilide Use in Chronic Atrial Fibrillation (MAGIC-AF; ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01014741) study. The objective of the current study is to report the 1-year outcome after PVI alone in this unique patient group. METHODS AND RESULTS: The 1-year single procedure freedom from atrial arrhythmia off anti-arrhythmic drugs was reported for the 35 patients in the MAGIC-AF study with persistent AF termination during or upon completion of PVI. Freedom from recurrent atrial arrhythmia was achieved in 60% of patients where AF terminated during PVI. Cavotricuspid isthmus flutter was common when AF terminated to a macro re-entrant flutter during PVI, and responsible for 92% of all flutter circuits with AF termination. CONCLUSIONS: Persistent AF termination during PVI may identify a subgroup of patients who experience a similar long-term clinical outcome with PVI ablation alone when compared with other more extensive persistent AF ablation strategies. Pulmonary vein isolation alone may be an appropriate tactic in this subgroup of persistent AF patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".