High Prevalence of Proarrhythmic Events in Patients With History of Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing a Rhythm Control Strategy: A Retrospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A retrospective study was undertaken to evaluate the respective prevalence of proarrhythmic events depending on various therapeutic regimens within a population of patients with history of atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing a rhythm control strategy. METHODS: Inclusion criterion was the presence of AF in the patient's clinical history, whose cardioversion had been followed by the adoption of rhythm control strategy. The primary endpoint was the determination of the respective prevalences of paradoxical arrhythmias in the various therapeutic groups. The secondary objective was all-cause mortality. RESULTS: A total of 182 cases of proarrhythmia out of 624 patients were detected during a median follow-up of 20 months (interquartile range: 18 - 24 months). The prevalences of proarrhythmic events were: IC antiarrhythmic drugs + beta-blockers, 111 cases out of a total of 251 patients (44.22%); amiodarone, seven cases out of a total of 230 patients (3%); sotalol, 61 cases out of a total of 140 patients (43.57%); quinidine + digoxin, three cases out of a total of three patients (100%). The paradoxical arrhythmias were: torsades de pointes, second- and third-degree sino-atrial block, slow atrial flutter with 1:1 atrioventricular (AV) conduction, second-degree Mobitz II AV block, and sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia. No fatal case of proarrhythmia was found. CONCLUSIONS: Secondary prevention of AF relapses by means of drugs suitable for accomplishing rhythm control strategy exposes the patients to incumbent risk of proarrhythmic events. Thus, the choice to avoid some varieties of antiarrhythmics with marked proarrhythmic potential (class IC drugs, sotalol, quinidine) appears to be warranted.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".