Sex differences in catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: results from AXAFA-AFNET 5
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Study sex-differences in efficacy and safety of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. METHODS AND RESULTS: We assessed first AF ablation outcomes on continuous anticoagulation in 633 patients [209 (33%) women and 424 (67%) men] in a pre-specified subgroup analysis of the AXAFA-AFNET 5 trial. We compared the primary outcome (death, stroke or transient ischaemic attack, or major bleeding) and secondary outcomes [change in quality of life (QoL) and cognitive function] 3 months after ablation. Women were older (66 vs. 63 years, P < 0.001), more often symptomatic, had lower QoL and a longer history of AF. No sex differences in ablation procedure were found. Women stayed in hospital longer than men (2.1 ± 2.3 vs. 1.6 ± 1.3 days, P = 0.004). The primary outcome occurred in 19 (9.1%) women and 26 (6.1%) men, P = 0.19. Women experienced more bleeding events requiring medical attention (5.7% vs. 2.1%, P = 0.03), while rates of tamponade (1.0% vs. 1.2%) or intracranial haemorrhage (0.5% vs. 0%) did not differ. Improvement in QoL after ablation was similar between the sexes [12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) physical 5.1% and 5.9%, P = 0.26; and SF-12 mental 3.7% and 1.6%, P = 0.17]. At baseline, mild cognitive impairment according to the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was present in 65 (32%) women and 123 (30%) men and declined to 23% for both sexes at end of follow-up. CONCLUSION: Women and men experience similar improvement in QoL and MoCA score after AF ablation on continuous anticoagulation. Longer hospital stay, a trend towards more nuisance bleeds, and a lower overall QoL in women were the main differences observed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".