Procedural and Intermediate-term Results of the Electroanatomical-guided Cardioneuroablation for the Treatment of Supra-Hisian Second- or Advanced-degree Atrioventricular Block: the PIRECNA multicentre registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Prior case series showed promising results for cardioneuroablation in patients with vagally induced atrioventricular blocks (VAVBs). We aimed to examine the acute procedural characteristics and intermediate-term outcomes of electroanatomical-guided cardioneuroablation (EACNA) in patients with VAVB. METHODS AND RESULTS: This international multicentre retrospective registry included data collected from 20 centres. Patients presenting with symptomatic paroxysmal or persistent VAVB were included in the study. All patients underwent EACNA. Procedural success was defined by the acute reversal of atrioventricular blocks (AVBs) and complete abolition of atropine response. The primary outcome was occurrence of syncope and daytime second- or advanced-degree AVB on serial prolonged electrocardiogram monitoring during follow-up. A total of 130 patients underwent EACNA. Acute procedural success was achieved in 96.2% of the cases. During a median follow-up of 300 days (150, 496), the primary outcome occurred in 17/125 (14%) cases with acute procedural success (recurrence of AVB in 9 and new syncope in 8 cases). Operator experience and use of extracardiac vagal stimulation were similar for patients with and without primary outcomes. A history of atrial fibrillation, hypertension, and coronary artery disease was associated with a higher primary outcome occurrence. Only four patients with primary outcome required pacemaker placement during follow-up. CONCLUSION: This is the largest multicentre study demonstrating the feasibility of EACNA with encouraging intermediate-term outcomes in selected patients with VAVB. Studies investigating the effect on burden of daytime symptoms caused by the AVB are required to confirm these findings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".