High-Power Short-Duration vs Low-Power Long-Duration Ablation for Pulmonary Vein Isolation: A Substudy of the AWARE Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Pulmonary vein isolations (PVI) are being performed using a high-power, short duration (HPSD) strategy. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy and safety outcomes of a HPSD vs low-power long duration (LPLD) approach to PVI in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods Patients were grouped according to a HPSD (≥40 W) or LPLD (≤ 35 W) strategy. The primary endpoint was the one-year recurrence of any atrial arrhythmia lasting ≥ 30 seconds, detected using three 14-day ambulatory continuous ECG monitoring. Procedural and safety endpoints were also evaluated. The primary analysis were regression models incorporating propensity scores yielding adjusted relative risk (RR a ) and mean difference (MD a ) estimates. Results Of the 398 patients included in the AWARE Trial, 173 (43%) underwent HPSD and 225 (57%) LPLD ablation. The distribution of power was 50 W in 75%, 45 W in 20% and 40 W in 5% in the HPSD group, and 35W with 25W on the posterior wall in the LPLD group. The primary outcome was not statistically significant at 30.1% vs 22.2% in HPSD and LPLD group with RR a 0.77 (95% confidence interval [CI]) 0.55-1.10; p=0.165). The secondary outcome of repeat catheter ablation was not statistically significant at 6.9% and 9.8% (RR a 1.59 [95% CI 0.77-3.30]; p=0.208) respectively. The incidence of any ECG documented AF during the blanking period was numerically lower in the HPSD group: 1.7% vs 8.0% (RR a 3.95 [95% CI 1.00-15.61; p=0.049). The total procedure time was significantly shorter in the HPSD group (MD a 97.5 minutes [95% CI 84.8-110.4)]; p<0.0001) with no difference in adjudicated serious adverse events. Conclusions A HPSD strategy was associated with significantly shorter procedural times with similar efficacy in terms of clinical arrhythmia recurrence. Importantly, there was no signal for increased harm with a HPSD strategy. Graphical Abstract Non-standard Abbreviations and Acronyms HPSD: High-Power Short Duration; LPLD: Low-Power Long Duration; QOL: Quality of Life; WACA: wide area circumferential ablation; PVI: Pulmonary Vein Isolation; AF: Atrial Fibrillation Clinical Perspective What is known -The optimal power and duration of ablation lesions to produce durable pulmonary vein isolation remain unclear. -Nonrandomized studies have suggested clinical efficacy with high-power short duration radiofrequency ablation vs low-power long duration. What this study adds -In this large substudy of the AWARE Trial, a high-power short duration radiofrequency ablation strategy was found to be similarly effective as a low-power long duration strategy with no difference in time to first recurrence of any AF lasting ≥ 30 seconds. -Procedural were substantially reduced with high-power short duration ablation with no significant difference in overall complication rates.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".