Effect of continuous positive airway pressure therapy on recurrence of atrial fibrillation after pulmonary vein isolation in patients with obstructive sleep apnea: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is associated with atrial fibrillation (AF). Whether treatment with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) reduces AF recurrence after catheter ablation with pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of CPAP treatment on the recurrence and burden of AF after PVI in patients with OSA. METHODS: We randomized patients with paroxysmal AF and an apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) ≥15 events/hour to treatment with CPAP or standard care. Heart rhythm was monitored by an implantable loop recorder. AF recurrence after PVI was defined as any episode of AF lasting >2 minutes after a 3-month blanking period. RESULTS: PVI was performed in 83 patients. Thirty-seven patients were randomized to CPAP treatment and 46 patients to standard care. The AHI was reduced from 26.7 ± 14 events/hour to 1.7 ± 1.3 events/hour at follow-up in the CPAP group (P = .001). A total of 57% of patients in both the CPAP group and the standard care group had at least 1 episode of AF 3-12 months after PVI (P for difference = 1). AF burden after ablation was reduced in both groups, with no between-group difference (P = .69). CONCLUSION: In patients with paroxysmal AF and OSA, treatment with CPAP did not further reduce the risk of AF recurrence after ablation. PVI considerably reduced the burden of AF in OSA patients, without any difference between groups.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".