MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2769071232 · doi:10.1093/europace/eux336

Surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2017· review· en· W2769071232 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEP Europace · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaSt. Boniface HospitalThrombosis and Atherosclerosis Research InstituteMcMaster UniversityUniversité de SherbrookePopulation Health Research Institute
FundersLivaNovaEuropean Society of CardiologyAtriCure
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationRelative riskRandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisConfidence intervalAblationStroke (engine)Internal medicineCardiologyCatheter ablationPublication biasSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims: The aim of this review was to assess the effect of concomitant surgical atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation on postoperative freedom from AF and patient-important outcomes. Methods and results: We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE databases from inception to May 2016 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating surgical AF ablation using any lesion set vs. no surgical AF ablation in adults with AF undergoing cardiac surgery. We performed screening, risk-of-bias evaluation, and data collection independently and in duplicate. We evaluated risk of bias with the modified Cochrane tool, quality of evidence using GRADE framework, and pooled data with a random-effects model. Of the 23 included studies, only one was considered at low risk of bias. Surgical AF ablation was associated with more freedom from AF at 12 months [relative risk (RR) = 2.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.92-2.80; P < 0.001, low quality]. However, no significant difference was seen in mortality (RR = 1.07, 95% CI 0.72-1.52; P = 0.41, moderate quality), stroke (RR = 1.19, 95% CI 0.59-2.39; P = 0.63, moderate quality), or pacemaker implantation (RR = 1.28, 95% CI 0.85-1.95; P = 0.24, high quality). Comparing biatrial and left-sided lesion sets showed no difference in mortality (P-interaction = 0.60) or stroke (P-interaction = 0.12). At 12 months, biatrial procedures led to more freedom from AF (RR = 2.80, 95% CI 2.13-3.68; P < 0.0001) when compared with left-sided ablation (RR = 2.00, 95% CI 1.68-2.39; P < 0.0001) (P-interaction = 0.04) Biatrial procedures appear to increase the risk for pacemaker (RR = 2.68, 95% CI 1.41-5.11; P = 0.002) compared with no ablation while left-sided ablation does not (RR = 1.08, 95% CI 0.67-1.74; P = 0.76) (P-interaction = 0.03). Conclusion: Surgical AF ablation during cardiac surgery improves freedom from AF. However, impact on patient-important outcomes including mortality and stroke has not shown statistical significance in current RCT evidence. Biatrial compared with left-sided lesion sets showed no difference in mortality or stroke but were associated with significantly increased freedom from AF and risk for pacemaker requirement.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.512
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0950.036
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.329
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.145 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it