Left Atrial Appendage Volume Predicts Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence after Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The influence of left atrial appendage volume (LAAV) on the recurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF) following radiofrequency catheter ablation remains unclear. Objectives We performed a meta-analysis to assess whether LAAV is an independent predictor of AF recurrence following radiofrequency catheter ablation. Methods The PubMed and the Cochrane Library databases were searched until March 2022 to identify publications evaluating LAAV in association with AF recurrence after radiofrequency catheter ablation. Seven studies that fulfilled the specified criteria of our analysis were found. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to evaluate the quality of the studies. The pooled effects were evaluated depending on standardized mean differences (SMDs) or hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results A total of 1017 patients from 7 cohort studies with a mean follow-up 16.3 months were included in the meta-analysis. Data from 6 studies (943 subjects) comparing LAAV showed that the baseline LAAV was significantly higher in patients with AF recurrence compared to those without AF (SMD: −0.63; 95% CI: −0.89 to −0,37; all p values < 0.05; I2= 62.6%). Moreover, higher LAAV was independently associated with a significantly higher risk of AF recurrence after radiofrequency catheter ablation (HR: 1.10; 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.18). Conclusions The meta-analysis showed that there is a significant correlation between LAAV and AF recurrence after radiofrequency catheter ablation, and the role of LAAV in AF patients should not be ignored in clinical practice.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.397 | 0.032 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".