Effect of Catheter Ablation Using Pulmonary Vein Isolation With vs Without Posterior Left Atrial Wall Isolation on Atrial Arrhythmia Recurrence in Patients With Persistent Atrial Fibrillation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) alone is less effective in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) compared with paroxysmal AF. The left atrial posterior wall may contribute to maintenance of persistent AF, and posterior wall isolation (PWI) is a common PVI adjunct. However, PWI has not been subjected to randomized comparison. Objective: To compare PVI with PWI vs PVI alone in patients with persistent AF undergoing first-time catheter ablation. Design, Setting, and Participants: Investigator initiated, multicenter, randomized clinical trial involving 11 centers in 3 countries (Australia, Canada, UK). Symptomatic patients with persistent AF were randomized 1:1 to either PVI with PWI or PVI alone. Patients were enrolled July 2018-March 2021, with 1-year follow-up completed March 2022. Interventions: The PVI with PWI group (n = 170) underwent wide antral pulmonary vein isolation followed by posterior wall isolation involving linear ablation at the roof and floor to achieve electrical isolation. The PVI-alone group (n = 168) underwent wide antral pulmonary vein isolation alone. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end point was freedom from any documented atrial arrhythmia of more than 30 seconds without antiarrhythmic medication at 12 months, after a single ablation procedure. The 23 secondary outcomes included freedom from atrial arrhythmia with/without antiarrhythmic medication after multiple procedures, freedom from symptomatic AF with/without antiarrhythmic medication after multiple procedures, AF burden between study groups at 12 months, procedural outcomes, and complications. Results: Among 338 patients randomized (median age, 65.6 [IQR, 13.1] years; 76.9% men), 330 (97.6%) completed the study. After 12 months, 89 patients (52.4%) assigned to PVI with PWI were free from recurrent atrial arrhythmia without antiarrhythmic medication after a single procedure, compared with 90 (53.6%) assigned to PVI alone (between-group difference, -1.2%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.99 [95% CI, 0.73-1.36]; P = .98). Of the secondary end points, 9 showed no significant difference, including freedom from atrial arrhythmia with/without antiarrhythmic medication after multiple procedures (58.2% for PVI with PWI vs 60.1% for PVI alone; HR, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.79-1.55]; P = .57), freedom from symptomatic AF with/without antiarrhythmic medication after multiple procedures (68.2% vs 72%; HR, 1.20 [95% CI, 0.80-1.78]; P = .36) or AF burden (0% [IQR, 0%-2.3%] vs 0% [IQR, 0%-2.8%], P = .47). Mean procedural times (142 [SD, 69] vs 121 [SD, 57] minutes, P < .001) and ablation times (34 [SD, 21] vs 28 [SD, 12] minutes, P < .001) were significantly shorter for PVI alone. There were 6 complications for PVI with PWI and 4 for PVI alone. Conclusions and Relevance: In patients undergoing first-time catheter ablation for persistent AF, the addition of PWI to PVI alone did not significantly improve freedom from atrial arrhythmia at 12 months compared with PVI alone. These findings do not support the empirical inclusion of PWI for ablation of persistent AF. Trial Registration: anzctr.org.au Identifier: ACTRN12616001436460.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it