Pulsed field ablation prevents chronic atrial fibrotic changes and restrictive mechanics after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Pulsed field ablation (PFA), a non-thermal ablative modality, may show different effects on the myocardial tissue compared to thermal ablation. Thus, this study aimed to compare the left atrial (LA) structural and mechanical characteristics after PFA vs. thermal ablation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Cardiac magnetic resonance was performed pre-ablation, acutely (<3 h), and 3 months post-ablation in 41 patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing pulmonary vein (PV) isolation with PFA (n = 18) or thermal ablation (n = 23, 16 radiofrequency ablations, 7 cryoablations). Late gadolinium enhancement (LGE), T2-weighted, and cine images were analysed. In the acute stage, LGE volume was 60% larger after PFA vs. thermal ablation (P < 0.001), and oedema on T2 imaging was 20% smaller (P = 0.002). Tissue changes were more homogeneous after PFA than after thermal ablation, with no sign of microvascular damage or intramural haemorrhage. In the chronic stage, the majority of acute LGE had disappeared after PFA, whereas most LGE persisted after thermal ablation. The maximum strain on PV antra, the LA expansion index, and LA active emptying fraction declined acutely after both PFA and thermal ablation but recovered at the chronic stage only with PFA. CONCLUSION: Pulsed field ablation induces large acute LGE without microvascular damage or intramural haemorrhage. Most LGE lesions disappear in the chronic stage, suggesting a specific reparative process involving less chronic fibrosis. This process may contribute to a preserved tissue compliance and LA reservoir and booster pump functions.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".