Left atrial appendage isolation in atrial fibrillation catheter ablation: A meta‐analysis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A significant proportion of patients’ experience recurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF) despite pulmonary venous isolation (PVI), especially those with persistent AF. Isolation of the left atrial appendage (LAA) may reduce AF recurrence. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of LAA isolation in addition to PVI compared with PVI alone. We conducted a comprehensive search of electronic databases, up to April 21st, 2017, for all studies comparing the effect LAA electrical isolation or ligation in addition to PVI, as opposed to PVI alone, on the recurrence of atrial fibrillation after catheter ablation. We used random‐effects meta‐analysis models to summarize the studies. One RCT and four observational studies enrolling 781 patients were retained. Four studies assessed the added effect of LAA catheter ablation, and one study evaluated the effect of LAA ligation with the aim of LAA electrical isolation. Four studies exclusively enrolled patients with persistent atrial fibrillation and one study predominantly enrolled patients with persistent atrial fibrillation. Follow‐up ranged from 12 to 15 months. The addition of LAA isolation to PVI reduced AF recurrence compared with the latter alone (odds ratio (OR) = 0.19; 95% confidence intervals (CI) = 0.10‐0.37; P < 0.00001). Left atrial appendage isolation was also associated with a reduction in AF recurrence after repeat ablation (OR = 0.40; CI = 0.25‐0.65; P = 0.0003). The addition of LAA isolation to PVI was associated with a decrease in AF recurrence in patients with persistent AF. Further studies are needed to assess the effect on long‐term risk of stroke.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it