Redefining the Blanking Period After Catheter Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Early recurrences (ERs) of atrial tachyarrhythmia are common after catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation. A 3-month blanking period is recommended by current guidelines. This study sought to investigate the significance of ER during the first 3 months post ablation in predicting late recurrences and determine whether it varies according to timing. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 401 patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation undergoing pulmonary vein isolation were followed for 12 months with transtelephonic monitoring in the ADVICE (Adenosine Following Pulmonary Vein Isolation to Target Dormant Conduction Elimination) trial. Patients with atrial tachyarrhythmia ≥30 s within the 3-month blanking period were stratified according to the timing of ER. A total of 179 patients (44.6%) experienced their last episode of ER during the first (n=53), second (n=44), or third (n=82) month of the 3-month blanking period. One-year freedom from symptomatic atrial tachyarrhythmia was 77.2% in patients without ER compared with 62.6%, 36.4%, and 7.8% in patients with ER 1, 2, and 3 months post ablation, respectively (P<0.0001). Receiver operating curve analyses revealed a strong correlation between the timing of ER and late recurrence (area under the curve 0.82, P<0.0001). Corresponding hazard ratios for ER during the first, second, and third months were 1.84, 4.45, and 9.64, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study validates the use of a blanking period after catheter ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation but calls into question the 90-day cut-off value. In particular, >90% of patients with ER during the third month post ablation experience late recurrence by 1 year. However, pending further study, repeat ablation before 90 days cannot be routinely advocated. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01058980.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".