Safety, efficacy, and quality of life outcomes of pulsed field ablation in Japanese patients with atrial fibrillation: results from the PULSED AF trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pulsed field ablation (PFA), a novel treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF), has yet to be evaluated in a Japanese cohort. METHODS: In this sub-analysis of the PULSED AF trial, 12-month outcomes of paroxysmal AF (PAF) and persistent AF (PsAF) patients treated with PFA in four Japan centers were assessed. After a 90-day blanking period, primary efficacy was determined via freedom from a composite endpoint of acute procedural failure, arrhythmia recurrence, or antiarrhythmic drug escalation over 1 year. Patient improvement was evaluated via two quality of life (QoL) surveys (AFEQT and EQ-5D) at baseline and 12 months. RESULTS: The analysis included 32 patients, 16 PAF and 16 PsAF, with PAF patients averaging 61.1 ± 10.6 years and PsAF patients averaging 62.8 ± 11.5 years of age. Females made up 31% of PAF and 25% of PsAF cohorts. Acute pulmonary vein isolation was achieved in 100% of both cohorts. The primary efficacy success rate at 12 months was 75.0% for PAF and 56.3% for PsAF patients. No primary safety events occurred. The mean AFEQT score significantly increased for both PAF (25.9 points, p < 0.0001) and PsAF (13.2 points, p = 0.0002) patients, while the EQ-5D-5L score improved significantly for PAF (0.12 points, p = 0.048) patients but not for PsAF (0.04 points, p = 0.08) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Similar to outcomes in the global cohort, ablation with the PulseSelect™ PFA catheter was efficient, effective, and safe in a Japanese population, resulting in improved QoL for PAF and PsAF patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04198701.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".