Staged hybrid procedure versus radiofrequency catheter ablation in the treatment of atrial fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The treatment effect of the hybrid procedure, consisting of a thoracoscopic ablation followed by an endocardial radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA), is unclear. A total of 117 ablation-naïve patients who underwent either the staged hybrid procedure (n = 72) or RFCA alone (n = 105) for drug-refractory, non-valvular persistent or long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) were enrolled. The primary outcome is occurrence of total atrial arrhythmia, defined as a composite of AF, sustained atrial tachycardia (AT), and atypical atrial flutter (AFL) after index procedure. The mean age was 52.7 years. Eighty-four percentage of the patients were male. Patients with prior history of stroke and long-standing persistent AF were more prevalent in the hybrid group than RFCA group. The left atrial volume index was larger in the hybrid group (P<0.001). During 2.1 years of median follow-up, the incidence of total atrial arrhythmia was not different between the two groups (32.5% vs. 35.7%; adjusted hazard ratio: 0.64; 95% confidence interval: 0.36-1.14; P = 0.13). The AF recurrence was significantly lower in the hybrid group than in the RFCA group (29.6% vs. 34.9%; adjusted HR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.29-0.99; P = 0.046). The hospital stay was longer in the hybrid group than in the RFCA group (11 days vs. 4 days; P<0.001). A staged hybrid procedure may be an alternative choice for drug-refractory persistent AF, but it is no more effective than RFCA alone to eliminate atrial arrhythmias. Considering the long-length of stay and the morbidity, careful consideration should be given in selection of treatment strategy.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".