Long-Term Outcome of Pulmonary Vein Isolation With and Without Focal Impulse and Rotor Modulation Mapping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This meta-analysis systematically evaluated the outcome of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) with and without focal impulse and rotor modulation (FIRM) ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation. Methods and Results: Extensive literature search was performed for studies reporting outcomes of PVI alone and PVI+FIRM procedures. For PVI alone, only randomized trials conducted in the past 3 years reporting single-procedure off-antiarrhythmic drugs success rate at ≥12-month follow-up were included. In PVI+FIRM group, all published studies reporting single-procedure off-antiarrhythmic drugs success rate with at least 1-year follow-up were identified. Meta-analytic estimates were derived using DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models, and pooled estimates of success rate (95% confidence interval) were computed. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran Q test and I 2 . Study quality was assessed using Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Fifteen trials were included, 10 with PVI+FIRM (n=511, nonrandomized prospective design), and 5 with PVI-only trials (n=295, randomized trials). All patients in PVI-only trials had 100% nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation, except 1 study, and no prior ablations. About 24% of PVI+FIRM population had paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. After 15.9±5.5 (median 12) months follow-up, the off-antiarrhythmic drugs pooled success rate was 50% in FIRM+PVI (95% confidence interval, 28%–72%) and 58% in PVI (95% confidence interval, 46%–71%). Difference in effect size between groups was not statistically significant ( P =0.21). No significant heterogeneity (total or within group) was observed in this meta-analysis (negative I 2 values considered equal to zero). Conclusions: The overall pooled estimate did not show any therapeutic benefit of PVI+FIRM approach over PVI alone, which suggests the need to reevaluate the clinical use of FIRM ablation in atrial fibrillation.
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 | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.045 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".