Effect of Aggressive Blood Pressure Control on the Recurrence of Atrial Fibrillation After Catheter Ablation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Radiofrequency catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation has become an important therapy for AF; however, recurrence rates remain high. We proposed to determine whether aggressive blood pressure (BP) lowering prevents recurrent atrial fibrillation (AF) after catheter ablation in patients with AF and a high symptom burden. Methods: We randomly assigned 184 patients with AF and a BP >130/80 mm Hg to aggressive BP (target <120/80 mm Hg) or standard BP (target <140/90 mm Hg) treatment before their scheduled AF catheter ablation. The primary outcome was symptomatic recurrence of AF/atrial tachycardia/atrial flutter lasting >30 seconds, determined 3 months beyond catheter ablation by a blinded end-point evaluation. Results: The median follow-up was 14 months. At 6 months, the mean systolic BP was 123.2±13.2 mm Hg in the aggressive BP treatment group versus 135.4±15.7 mm Hg ( P <0.001) in the standard treatment group. The primary outcome occurred in 106 patients, 54 (61.4%) in the aggressive BP treatment group compared with 52 (61.2%) in the standard treatment group (hazard ratio=0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.65–1.38; P =0.763). In the prespecified subgroup analysis of the influence of age, patients ≥61 years of age had a lower primary outcome event rate with aggressive BP (hazard ratio=0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.34–0.97; P =0.013). There was a higher rate of hypotension requiring medication adjustment in the aggressive BP group (26% versus 0%). Conclusions: In this study, this duration of aggressive BP treatment did not reduce atrial arrhythmia recurrence after catheter ablation for AF but resulted in more hypotension. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00438113.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".