Cryoballoon or Radiofrequency Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation Assessed by Continuous Monitoring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Advanced generation ablation technologies have been developed to achieve more effective pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) and minimize arrhythmia recurrence after atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. Methods: We randomly assigned 346 patients with drug-refractory paroxysmal AF to contact force–guided radiofrequency ablation (CF-RF; n=115), 4-minute cryoballoon ablation (Cryo-4; n=115), or 2-minute cryoballoon ablation (Cryo-2; n=116). Follow-up was 12 months. The primary outcome was time to first documented recurrence of symptomatic or asymptomatic atrial tachyarrhythmia (AF, atrial flutter, or atrial tachycardia) between days 91 and 365 after ablation or a repeat ablation procedure at any time. Secondary end points included freedom from symptomatic arrhythmia and AF burden. All patients received an implantable loop recorder. Results: One-year freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmia defined by continuous rhythm monitoring was 53.9%, 52.2%, and 51.7% with CF-RF, Cryo-4, and Cryo-2, respectively ( P =0.87). One-year freedom from symptomatic atrial tachyarrhythmia defined by continuous rhythm monitoring was 79.1%, 78.2%, and 73.3% with CF-RF, Cryo-4, and Cryo-2, respectively ( P =0.26). Compared with the monitoring period before ablation, AF burden was reduced by a median of 99.3% (interquartile range, 67.8%–100.0%) with CF-RF, 99.9% (interquartile range, 65.3%–100.0%) with Cryo-4, and 98.4% (interquartile range, 56.2%–100.0%) with Cryo-2 ( P =0.36). Serious adverse events occurred in 3 patients (2.6%) in the CF-RF group, 6 patients (5.3%) in the Cryo-4 group, and 7 patients (6.0%) in the Cryo-2 group, with no significant difference between groups ( P =0.24). The CF-RF group had a significantly longer procedure duration but significantly shorter fluoroscopy exposure ( P <0.001 vs cryoballoon groups). Conclusions: In this multicenter, randomized, single-blinded trial, CF-RF and 2 different regimens of cryoballoon ablation resulted in no difference in 1-year efficacy, which was 53% by time to first recurrence but >98% burden reduction as assessed by continuous cardiac rhythm monitoring. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01913522.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".