Maintenance of sinus rhythm after electrical cardioversion to identify patients with persistent atrial fibrillation who respond favorably to pulmonary vein isolation: the pre-pacific study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is successful in approximately 50% of patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (PsAF) at one year. Identifying pre-procedurally the patients who respond favorably to a PVI alone strategy could improve their management. The present study aims to assess the predictive value of clinical response to pre-ablation electrical cardioversion (ECV) to identify the responders to PVI. Methods Consecutive patients undergoing catheter ablation for PsAF were retrospectively classified, as “ECV successful” vs. “ECV failure”, according to the rhythm of presentation after an ECV performed ≥4 weeks. Clinical and procedural data were analyzed in both groups according to the ablation strategy applied (PVI vs. PVI + substrate modification). Results In total, 58 patients (39.4%) had successful ECVs and 89 (60.6%) had failed ECV. Preprocedural characteristics were similar in both groups. Compared to the ECV failure group, patients with successful ECV presented less frequently (34% vs. 60%; P = 0.004) and less extended (21.3 ± 22.2% vs. 38.9 ± 27.4% of LA surface, P = 0.008) low-voltage areas. Over 55 ± 19 weeks of follow-up, AF-free survival was similar in both groups (72.7% vs. 67.8%, p = 0.39). PVI alone resulted in 83% AF-free survival among patients in the ECV successful group at 13 months. Conclusion In approximately 40% of patients with PsAF, sinus rhythm can be restored by ECV and maintained for at least 1 month prior to catheter ablation. This clinical response is associated with less abnormal substrate as identified by left atrial voltage mapping and a procedural success rate of >80% with PVI alone.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".