Three‐year outcomes and reconnection patterns after initial contact force guided pulmonary vein isolation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Contact force (CF) sensing is a novel technology used for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF). We compared the single procedure success of CF-guided pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) with that of non-CF guided PVI during a 3-year (1,095 days) follow up period and analyzed the pattern of pulmonary vein (PV) reconnection. METHODS: A cohort of 167 subjects (68 CF vs. 99 non-CF) with paroxysmal AF were included in the study. Atrial arrhythmia (AA) recurrence was defined as documented AF, atrial flutter, or atrial tachycardia lasting >30 seconds and occurring after 90 days. RESULTS: Subjects in the CF group showed a statistically nonsignificant improvement in AA free survival compared to those in the non-CF group (66.2% vs. 51.5%; P value: 0.06). A greater propensity for reconnection was noted around the right-sided PVs compared to left-sided PVs related in both catheter ablation groups. For example, in the CF group 36% of right-sided segments reconnected compared to 16% of left-sided segments (P value <0.01). CONCLUSIONS: A greater propensity for reconnection was noted around the right sided PV segments in both the CF and non-CF groups. The explanation for this finding was related to greater catheter instability around the right sided veins. Further research is needed to explore the utility of a "real-time" composite indicator that includes RF energy, CF and catheter stability in predicting transmural lesion formation during catheter 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 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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".