Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in adult congenital heart disease: an international registry study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Life expectancies for patients with congenital heart disease (CHD) have dramatically increased in recent years, accompanied by a rise in atrial fibrillation (AF) prevalence. Data on AF ablation strategy and outcomes are limited in CHD. Purpose We aimed to investigate the characteristics of CHD patients presenting for AF ablation and their outcomes. Methods A multicenter, retrospective analysis was performed of CHD patients undergoing AF ablation between 2004 and 2020 at 13 participating centers. The severity of CHD was classified using the 2014 PACES/HRS guidelines. Clinical data were collected including ablation strategy and follow up. One-year procedural success was defined as freedom from AF in the absence of antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs, complete) or including previously failed AADs (partial). Results Of 240 patients, 127 (53.4%) had persistent AF, 62.5% were male, and mean age was 55.2±0.9 years. CHD complexity categories included 147 (61.3%) simple, 69 (28.8%) intermediate and 25 (10.4%) severe. The most common CHD type was atrial septal defect (n=78). More complex CHD conditions included transposition of the great arteries (n=14), anomalous pulmonary veins (n=13), tetralogy of Fallot (n=8), cor triatriatum (n=7), single ventricle physiology (n=2), among others. The majority (71.3%) of patients had AF despite at least one AAD. 46 patients (22.1%) had a reduced systemic ventricular ejection fraction <50%, and the mean left atrial diameter was 44.1±0.7 mm. PV isolation (PVI) was performed in 227 patients (94.6%); additional ablation strategies included left atrial linear ablations (25.4%), CFAE (19.2%), and cavotricuspid isthmus ablation (40.8). One-year complete and partial success rates were 45.0% and 20.5%, respectively, with no significant difference in the rate of complete success between complexity groups. Overall, 38 patients (15.8%) required more than one ablation procedure. There were 3 (1.3%) major and 13 (5.4%) minor procedural complications. Conclusion AF ablation in this complex population was safe and resulted in AF control in the majority of patients. Future work should address the most appropriate ablation targets in the challenging population. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.
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 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".