MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 14782: Incidence and Characteristics of Pulmonary Vein Stenosis Following Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation: Insights From the Contemporary Multicenter ADVICE Trial

2014· article· en· W2914712900 on OpenAlexaff
Sophie Gomes, Paul Khairy, Jason G. Andrade, Stanley Nattel, Mario Talajic, Peter G. Guerra, Léna Rivard, Marc Dubuc, Katia Dyrda, Bernard Thibault, Blandine Montdesert, Sylvie Lévesque, Rafik Tadros, N. Malliet, Sandrine Venier, Catherine Millette, Denis‐Claude Roy, Laurent Macle

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePulmonary vein stenosisPulmonary veinAtrial fibrillationStenosisCatheter ablationAblationRadiologyCardiologyRadiofrequency ablationInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Pulmonary vein (PV) stenosis is a well-described complication of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. Available data regarding the incidence of pulmonary vein (PV) stenosis associated with radiofrequency catheter ablation of AF are limited to surveys, single-center studies, and small trials. We prospectively assessed the incidence of PV stenosis after catheter ablation of AF in the context of a large randomized multicenter international study (ADVICE). Methods: Patients undergoing a first PV isolation procedure for the treatment of symptomatic paroxysmal AF were enrolled from 13 centers. PV isolation was performed by encircling all PVs using an irrigated-tip radiofrequency ablation catheter guided by a circular mapping catheter with the endpoint of electrical PV isolation. Systematic imaging of the left atrium and PVs using computed tomography-scan (CT-Scan) or magnetic resonance (MRI) was performed at 90 days post ablation to assess the incidence of PV stenosis. Significant PV stenosis was defined by a narrowing of PV luminal diameter greater than 70% as per Heart Rhythm Society guidelines. The incidence of moderate PV stenosis defined by a narrowing between 50% and 70% was also analyzed. Predictors of PV stenosis were explored by logistic regression analyses. Results: A total of 197 patients (mean age 59±9 yrs, 71% male) were included in this study. Electrical PV isolation was achieved in all patients. On the post ablation imaging study (performed at a mean of 103±33 days post ablation), a significant PV stenosis was observed in 1.52% [95% confidence interval (0.00%-3.23%)] of patients. In addition, a moderate PV stenosis was seen in 3.55% [95% confidence interval (0.97%-6.14%)] of patients. The affected PVs included 8 left inferior PVs, 1 right inferior and 1 right middle PV. None of the patients were symptomatic or required an intervention related to the PV stenosis. The presence of PV stenosis could not be predicted by clinical, hemodynamic, or procedural parameters. Conclusions: Our systematic evaluation of the incidence of PV stenosis in the context of a prospective multinational trial confirms previously reported low rates of significant PV stenosis following radiofrequency catheter ablation of AF.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→