Pulmonary Vein Isolation or Pace and Ablate in Elderly Patients With Persistent Atrial Fibrillation (ABLATE Versus PACE)—Rationale, Methods, and Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Age is a major risk-factor for atrial fibrillation (AF) and associated hospitalisations. With increasing emphasis on rhythm control, pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is often suggested, even to elderly patients (≥ 75 years of age). Efficacy of PVI aiming at rhythm control is limited in persistent AF. Pacemaker implantation with atrioventricular node (AVN) ablation may represent a reasonable alternative, with the aim of controlling symptoms and improving quality of life in elderly patients. In this investigator-initiated, randomised, multicentre trial, we test the hypothesis that pacemaker implantation and AVN ablation provides superior symptom control over PVI in elderly patients with symptomatic persistent AF, without any increase in adverse event profile. In the ABLATE Versus PACE (NCT04906668) prospective open-label superiority trial, 196 elderly patients with normal ejection fraction and symptomatic persistent AF despite guideline-indicated medical therapy will be randomised to either cryoballoon PVI (ABLATE) or dual-chamber pacemaker implantation with subsequent AVN ablation (PACE), and followed for a minimum of 12 months. The primary efficacy outcome is a composite end point of rehospitalisation for atrial arrhythmia or cardiac decompensation/heart failure, (outpatient) electrical cardioversion, or upgrade to cardiac resynchronisation therapy owing to worsening of left ventricular ejection fraction to ≤ 35%. Secondary end points include death from any cause, stroke, quality of life, and procedure-related complications. Sample size is designed to achieve 80% power for the primary end point (2-tailed alpha of 5%). ABLATE Versus PACE will determine whether pacemaker implantation and AVN ablation can improve symptom-control in elderly patients with persistent AF over PVI without increasing safety end points.
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 | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".