Relationship between electrical gap after Maze procedure and atrial arrhythmia and ablation outcome after cardiac surgery and concomitant Maze procedure.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: There are few reports of the characteristics, mechanisms, and outcomes of atrial tachycardia (AT) and atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation after cardiac surgery and concomitant Maze procedures. This study investigated the mechanisms and long-term outcomes of AT and AF ablation after various Maze procedures, especially we examined in detail whether the arrhythmia after Maze procedure was due to gap or not. Methods and Results: We analyzed 37 consecutive cases with AT and AF after cardiac surgery and Maze procedure between 2007 and 2019. Fifty-nine atrial arrythmias were induced in 37 consecutive cases, and 49 of those atrial arrythmias were mappable ATs. Forty-two ATs was related to the Maze procedure in the 49 mappable ATs (87.5%). All 37 consecutive cases had residual electrical conductions (gaps) in the Maze lines (88 gaps; 2.4±1.2 gaps/patient). Forty-two of 88 gaps (47.7%) were associated with gap-related ATs. The most common gap-related ATs in this study were peri-mitral atrial flutter in 22 cases. The median follow-up period after ablation was 3.6±3.2 years (median, 2.1 years; interquartile range, 0.89-6.84). The Kaplan-Meier analysis of freedom from recurrent atrial arrhythmia after Maze procedure was 79.9% at 1-year follow up and 69.3% at 4-year follow up. Conclusions: Reentry was the main mechanism of AT after cardiac surgery and concomitant various Maze procedures, and AT were largely related to the gap in the Maze line between mitral valve anulus and pulmonary vein isolation line. Catheter ablation of AT after various Maze procedures seemed to be effective and safe during long-term follow-up.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".