Impact of left common pulmonary veins in the contact force versus cryoballoon atrial fibrillation ablation (CIRCA‐DOSE) study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Concerns remain regarding the effectiveness of PVI using the fixed diameter non-compliant cryoballoon in the presence of a left common pulmonary vein (LCPV). We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of PVI performed by contact-force guided radiofrequency (CF-RF) versus second-generation cryoballoon-based ablation in patients with LCPV. METHODS AND RESULTS: We enrolled 346 patients with paroxysmal AF and randomized them to CF-RF or cryoballoon ablation. PV anatomy was not assessed prior to enrolment, and there were no exclusions based on PV anatomy. All patients received an implantable cardiac monitor. LCPV was observed in 13.6% of patients (47/346). Left atrial time and fluoroscopy time did not differ between those with and without LCPV (P=0.58 and P=0.06, respectively). Freedom from any atrial tachyarrhythmia at one year was observed in 46.8% with LCPV and 54.5% without LCPV (P=0.06). In those with LCPV the freedom from any atrial tachyarrhythmia did not differ between those randomized to CF-RF or cryoballoon ablation (HR for recurrence 1.19, 95% CI 0.53-2.65, P=0.69). In those with LCPV the AF burden was reduced to a similar extent with CF-RF and cryoballoon ablation (99.7% vs. 99.5%, respectively; P=0.97). CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized clinical trial, the presence of a LCPV was associated with a trend towards higher rates of arrhythmia recurrence following PVI. No significant difference in arrhythmia recurrence was observed between patients with LCPV randomized to cryoballoon ablation or contact-force guided RF ablation, suggesting that either ablation modality is suitable in this population. (Cryoballoon vs. Irrigated Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation [CIRCA-DOSE], NCT01913522) This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".