Strategy for repeat procedures in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation: Systematic linear ablation with adjunctive ethanol infusion into the vein of Marshall versus electrophysiology‐guided ablation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The optimal strategy after a failed ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation (perAF) is unknown. This study evaluated the value of an anatomically guided strategy using a systematic set of linear lesions with adjunctive ethanol infusion into the vein of Marshall (Et-VOM) in patients referred for second perAF ablation procedures. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with perAF who underwent a second procedure were grouped according to the two strategies. The first strategy was an anatomically guided approach using systematic linear ablation with adjunctive Et-VOM, with bidirectional blocks at the posterior mitral isthmus (MI), roof, and cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) as the procedural endpoint (Group I). The second one was an electrophysiology-guided strategy, with atrial tachyarrhythmia termination as the procedural endpoint (Group II). Arrhythmia behavior during the procedure guided the ablation strategy. Groups I and II consisted of 96 patients (65 ± 9 years; 71 men) and 102 patients (63 ± 10 years; 83 men), respectively. Baseline characteristics were comparable. In Group I, Et-VOM was successfully performed in 91/96 (95%), and procedural endpoint (bidirectional block across all three anatomical lines) was achieved in 89/96 (93%). In Group II, procedural endpoint (atrial tachyarrhythmia termination) was achieved in 80/102 (78%). One-year follow-up demonstrated Group I (21/96 [22%]) experienced less recurrence compared to Group II (38/102 [37%], Log-rank p = .01). This was driven by lower AT recurrence in Group I (Group I: 10/96 [10%] vs. Group II: 29/102 [28%]; p = .002). CONCLUSION: Anatomically guided strategy with adjunctive Et-VOM is superior to an electrophysiology-guided strategy for second procedures in patients with perAF at 1-year 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".