Faculty Opinions recommendation of Relationship between the CHADS(2) score and risk of very late recurrences after catheter ablation of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation has been performed for more than 10 years. However, data about the long-term results were limited.OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the long-tem efficacy following paroxysmal atrial fibrillation ablation and to investigate whether there were different patterns of recurrences in patients with different CHADS(2) scores.METHODS: A total of 238 patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation who received a catheter ablation from 2004 to 2007 were enrolled. Free of recurrence was defined as the absence of atrial arrhythmias without using any antiarrhythmic agents after ablation.RESULTS: There were 121 patients (50.8%) suffering from recurrences after the first ablation procedure during a median follow-up period of 5 years. The CHADS(2) score and left atrial diameter were significant predictors of recurrences in the multivariate analysis. Different patterns of recurrence were observed in different groups of patients categorized on the base of CHADS(2) score. Among patients with a CHADS(2) score of ≥3 without recurrences at 2 years postablation, 63.6% experienced episodes of arrhythmias during the subsequent follow-up period. In contrast, in patients with a CHADS(2) score of 0 without recurrences at 2 years postablation, the future recurrence rate was only 2.7%.CONCLUSIONS: After a successful ablation, recurrences may continue to occur without reaching a plateau during the long-term follow-up, especially in patients with a high CHADS(2) score. The optimal follow-up strategy may differ and should be individualized for patients with different scores.Copyright © 2012 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. PMID: 22406145
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 | 0.004 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.271 | 0.141 |
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".