Atrioventricular node ablation for atrial fibrillation in the era of conduction system pacing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite key advances in catheter-based treatments, the management of persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) remains a therapeutic challenge in a significant subset of patients. While success rates have improved with repeat AF ablation procedures and the concurrent use of antiarrhythmic drugs, the likelihood of maintaining sinus rhythm during long-term follow-up is still limited. Atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) has returned as a valuable treatment option given the recent developments in cardiac pacing. With the advent of conduction system pacing, AVNA has seen a revival where pacing-induced cardiomyopathy after AVNA is felt to be overcome. This review will discuss the role of permanent pacemaker implantation and AVNA for AF management in this new era of conduction system pacing. Specifically, this review will discuss the haemodynamic consequences of AF and the mechanisms through which 'pace-and-ablate therapy' enhances outcomes, analyse historical and more recent literature across various pacing methods, and work to identify patient groups that may benefit from earlier implementation of this approach.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".