Catheter ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation: patterns of recurrence and impact on quality of life and health care utilization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patterns of atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence post-catheter ablation for persistent AF (PsAF) are not well described. This study aimed to describe the pattern of AF recurrence seen following catheter ablation for PsAF and the implications for healthcare utilization and quality of life (QoL). METHODS: This was a post-hoc analysis of the CAPLA study, an international, multicentre study that randomized patients with symptomatic PsAF to pulmonary vein isolation plus posterior wall isolation or pulmonary vein isolation alone. Patients underwent twice daily single lead ECG, implantable device monitoring or three monthly Holter monitoring. RESULTS: 154 of 333 (46.2%) patients (median age 67.3 years, 28% female) experienced AF recurrence at 12-month follow-up. Recurrence was paroxysmal in 97 (63%) patients and persistent in 57 (37%). Recurrence type did not differ between randomization groups (P = .508). Median AF burden was 27.4% in PsAF recurrence and .9% in paroxysmal AF (PAF) recurrence (P < .001). Patients with PsAF recurrence had lower baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (PsAF 50% vs. PAF 60%, P < .001) and larger left atrial volume (PsAF 54.2 ± 19.3 mL/m² vs. PAF 44.8 ± 11.6 mL/m², P = .008). Healthcare utilization was significantly higher in PsAF (45 patients [78.9%]) vs. PAF recurrence (45 patients [46.4%], P < .001) and lowest in those without recurrence (17 patients [9.5%], P < .001). Patients without AF recurrence had greater improvements in QoL as assessed by the Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality-of-Life (AFEQT) questionnaire (Δ33.3 ± 25.2 points) compared to those with PAF (Δ24.0 ± 25.0 points, P = .012) or PsAF (Δ13.4 ± 22.9 points, P < .001) recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: AF recurrence is more often paroxysmal after catheter ablation for PsAF irrespective of ablation strategy. Recurrent PsAF was associated with higher AF burden, increased healthcare utilization and antiarrhythmic drug use. The type of AF recurrence and AF burden may be considered important endpoints in clinical trials investigating ablation of PsAF.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".