Recurrences of Atrial Fibrillation Despite Durable Pulmonary Vein Isolation: The PARTY-PVI Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Recurrences of atrial fibrillation (AF) after pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) are mainly due to pulmonary vein reconnection. However, a growing number of patients have AF recurrences despite durable PVI. The optimal ablative strategy for these patients is unknown. We analyzed the impact of current ablation strategies in a large multicenter study. Methods: Patients undergoing a redo ablation for AF and presenting durable PVI were included. The freedom from atrial arrhythmia after pulmonary vein-based, linear-based, electrogram-based, and trigger-based ablation strategies were compared. Results: Between 2010 and 2020, 367 patients (67% men, 63±10 years, 44% paroxysmal) underwent a redo ablation for AF recurrences despite durable PVI at 39 centers. After durable PVI was confirmed, linear-based ablation was performed in 219 (60%) patients, electrogram-based ablation in 168 (45%) patients, trigger-based ablation in 101 (27%) patients, and pulmonary vein-based ablation in 56 (15%) patients. Seven patients (2%) did not undergo any additional ablation during the redo procedure. After 22±19 months of follow-up, 122 (33%) and 159 (43%) patients had a recurrence of atrial arrhythmia at 12 and 24 months, respectively. No significant difference in arrhythmia-free survival was observed between the different ablation strategies. Left atrial dilatation was the only independent factor associated with arrhythmia-free survival (HR, 1.59 [95% CI, 1.13–2.23]; P =0.006). Conclusions: In patients with recurrent AF despite durable PVI, no ablation strategy used alone or in combination during the redo procedure appears to be superior in improving arrhythmia-free survival. Left atrial size is a significant predictor of ablation outcome in this population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".