Troubles of Atrial Mechanical Recovery after Electrical Cardioversion in Patients with Persistent or Long-Lasting Persistent Atrial Fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In the present retrospective cohort study we have evaluated the missed or delayed atrial mechanical recovery in a population of patients with persistent or long-lasting persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) who achieved restoration of sinus rhythm on the ECG by electrical cardioversion (ECV). Methods: The endpoint of our study was the failure to recover the normal mechanics of the left atrium. Inclusion criterion was the persistent or long-lasting persistent AF successfully treated by means of ECV, provided that a pertinent documentation was made available, comprising ECG, conventional 2D echo-color-Doppler and speckle tracking echocardiography(STE) evaluation, with also a STE assessment of the atria at the days 1, 30 and 90 from the ECV freely available within the clinical record of the patient. Results: Out of a total of 80 patients with persistent or long-standing persistent AF, retrospectively enrolled, as many as 22.5% of them did not achieve the normalization of their atrial STE profile, even though they had been converted to sinus rhythm on the ECG by means of ECV. The building of ROC curves allowed us to establish that early measurements of global atrial strain could serve to predict both the risk of failure to recover the atrial mechanical function and the one of AF relapses over a 12 month follow-up. The values of 18% and 17% were also calculated to serve as cut off values, respectively, for the risk of atrial mechanical dysfunction and for the risk of AF relapses over a 12 month follow-up. Conclusions: Failure to recover the atrial reservoir function can accompany a restoration of sinus rhythm on the ECG in patients with long –standing persistent AF.In this case a serial STE evaluation could be useful to evaluate the atrial hypofunction over time.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".