Pulsed-field- vs. cryoballoon-based pulmonary vein isolation: lessons from repeat procedures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Pulsed-field ablation (PFA) is an emerging technology to perform pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). Initial data demonstrated high safety and efficacy. Data on long-term PVI durability and reconduction patterns in comparison to established energy sources for PVI are scarce. We compare findings in repeat ablation procedures after a first PFA to findings in repeat ablation procedures after a first cryoballoon ablation (CBA) based PVI. METHODS AND RESULT: A total of 550 consecutively enrolled patients underwent PFA or CBA index PVI. Repeat ablations in patients with symptomatic atrial arrhythmia recurrences were analysed. A total of 22/191 (12%) patients after index PFA-PVI and 44/359 (12%) after CBA-PVI underwent repeat ablation. Reconduction of any pulmonary vein (PV) was detected by multipolar spiral mapping catheter at each PV with careful evaluation of PV potentials and by 3D-mapping in 16/22 patients (73%) after PFA-PVI and in 33/44 (75%) after CBA-PVI (P = 1.000). Of 82 initially isolated PVs after PFA-PVI, 31 (38%) were reconducting; of 169 isolated PVs after CBA-PVI, 63 (37%) were reconducting (P = 0.936). Clinical atrial tachycardia occurred similarly in patients after PFA (5/22; 23%) and CBA (7/44; 16%; P = 0.515). Roof lines were set more often after PFA- (8/22; 36%) compared with CBA-PVI (5/44; 11%; P = 0.023). Repeat procedure duration [PFA: 87 (76, 123) min; CBA: 93 (75, 128) min; P = 0.446] was similar and fluoroscopy time [PFA: 11 (9, 14) min; CBA: 11 (8, 14) min; P = 0.739] equal between groups at repeat ablation. CONCLUSION: During repeat ablation after previous PFA- or CBA-based PVI, electrical PV-reconduction rates and patterns were similar.
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 | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".