Long-Term Differences in Autonomic Alterations After Cryoballoon vs Radiofrequency Atrial Fibrillation Ablation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The long-term natural history of autonomic alterations following catheter ablation of drug-refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation is poorly defined. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to define the long-term impact of thermal catheter ablation on the cardiac autonomic system. METHODS: The study included 346 patients with drug-refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation undergoing pulmonary vein isolation using thermal ablation energy (radiofrequency or cryoballoon ablation). All patients underwent insertion of a Reveal LINQ implantable cardiac monitor prior to ablation. The implantable cardiac monitor continuously recorded physical activity, heart rate variability (HRV) (measured as the standard deviation of the average normal-to-normal), daytime heart rate, and nighttime heart rate (NHR). Longitudinal autonomic data in the 2-month period prior to the date of ablation were compared with the 3 years following ablation. RESULTS: Following ablation, there was a significant decrease in HRV (10-20 ms; P < 0.0001) and significant increases in daytime heart rate and NHR (10 beats/min [P < 0.0001] and 7 beats/min [P < 0.0001], respectively). Changes in autonomic parameters were greatest in the first 3 months following ablation but remained significantly different from baseline for 36 months following ablation. Greater changes in NHR and HRV were associated with improved freedom from recurrent arrhythmia. The type of thermal ablation energy had no influence on the heart rate and autonomic parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Pulmonary vein isolation using thermal ablation energy results in significant sustained changes in the heart rate parameters related to autonomic function. These changes are independent of the ablation technology employed and are associated with procedural success. (Cryoballoon vs Irrigated Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation: Double Short vs Standard Exposure Duration [CIRCA-DOSE]; NCT01913522).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".