MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 18990: Impact of Cavotricuspid Isthmus Dependent Right Atrial Flutter Ablation on the Incidence and Recurrence of Atrial Fibrillation

2012· article· en· W2954265921 on OpenAlexaff
Madhu Reddy, Pramod Janga, Hema Pamulapati, Sudharani Bommana, Hallie Kretsinger, Chanakyaram A. Reddy, Brandon Barnds, Namratha Reddy, Donita Atkins, Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments
Canadian institutionsBrandon University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtrial flutterCardiologyAtrial fibrillationInternal medicineAblationIncidence (geometry)Radiofrequency ablation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: There is limited data evaluating the impact of cavotricuspid isthmus ablation for right Atrial Flutter (AFL) on the a) development of Atrial Fibrillation (AF) in those without AF and b) recurrence of AF in patients with previous AF. Methods: We studied all consecutive patients (with or without previous AF) undergoing cavotricuspid isthmus ablation for symptomatic drug resistant AFL in a large academic center. Results: 302 patients underwent AFL ablation between 2007 and 2011. Mean age was 65 yrs with 71% males. Mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 51±14%. Median duration since diagnosis of AFL was 2 months (IQ range 1-10) months. 136 (45%) patients had a history of AF (paroxysmal in 95%) and the remaining 166 (55%) patients did not have AF. Patients “with AF” were more likely to be females, have a previous stroke, had higher CHADS2 score, larger left atria and used more antiarrhythmics prior to ablation. 33 (25%) patients “with AF” had AF in the lab spontaneously, by programmed stimulation or with isoproterenol infusion when compared to 11(7%) patients “without AF”; p<0.001. After a mean follow-up time of 24 months, 95 (31%) patients were on antiarrhythmics (46% vs 19% in patients with and without AF respectively). During follow up, 75 (55%) of the patients “with AF”, had a recurrence of AF and 36 (22%) patients “without AF” group developed AF; p<0.001. The predictors of AF during follow up were female gender (p=0.03), number of antiarrhythmics used (p=0.009) and AF induction during the procedure (p<0.001). AF induction during the procedure predicted AF recurrence in patients “with AF” (p=0.020) but not in patients “without AF” (p=0.243). Conclusions: At 2 years after AFL ablation a) 22% of the patients with isolated AFL develop AF and b) 45% of the patients with previous AF did not have AF recurrence. AF induction during the procedure predicts recurrence of AF after AFL ablation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.277 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments→French-language works237,207→