MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404467753 · doi:10.1001/jama.2024.24438

Pulmonary Vein Isolation With Optimized Linear Ablation vs Pulmonary Vein Isolation Alone for Persistent AF

2024· article· en· W4404467753 on OpenAlexaff
Caihua Sang, Qiang Liu, Yiwei Lai, Shijun Xia, Ruhong Jiang, Songnan Li, Qi Guo, Qifan Li, Mingyang Gao, Xueyuan Guo, Lihong Huang, Nian Liu, Chenxi Jiang, Xiaoxia Liu, Mengmeng Li, Weili Ge, Shangming Song, Lianghua Chen, Shuanglun Xie, Jiangang Zou, Ke Chen, Xiangfei Liu, Hesheng Hu, Xinhua Wang, Jinlin Zhang, Zhaojun Wang, Chi Wang, Liu He, Chao Qiang Jiang, Ribo Tang, Ning Zhou, Yunlong Wang, Deyong Long, Xin Du, Chenyang Jiang, Laurent Macle, Jianzeng Dong, Changsheng Ma, Wei Wang, Xin Zhao, Changyi Li, Zhuo Liang, Xu Li, Xiangyi Kong, Wenli Dai, Yufeng Wang, Lu Yu, Xueyan Ding, Hui Cheng, Jianwei Lin, Pei Zhang, Yaxun Sun, Xiaofeng Hou, Yao Wang, Yumei Xue, Rong Bai, Jing Du

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart InstitutePrompt (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtrial tachycardiaPulmonary veinAtrial fibrillationAblationCardiologyAtrial flutterInternal medicineSinus rhythmRandomized controlled trialCatheter ablationRadiofrequency ablationSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Success rates of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) are modest for persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). Additional linear ablation beyond PVI has not been proved superior to PVI alone in randomized trials. Ethanol infusion of the vein of Marshall (EIVOM) facilitates ablation at the mitral isthmus and may lead to improved effectiveness of a linear ablation strategy. Objective: To determine whether linear ablation with radiofrequency energy combined with EIVOM added to PVI improves sinus rhythm maintenance compared with PVI alone in patients with persistent AF. Design, Setting, and Participants: The PROMPT-AF trial is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, open-label, randomized trial involving 12 tertiary hospitals in China. A total of 498 patients aged 18 to 80 years, with AF persisting for more than 3 months, undergoing first-time AF ablation, were enrolled and randomized from August 27, 2021, to July 16, 2023. Interventions: Patients were randomized to undergo PVI alone or PVI plus EIVOM and linear ablation (intervention). The latter group first underwent EIVOM, followed by PVI and linear ablation of the left atrial roof, mitral isthmus, and cavotricuspid isthmus. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was freedom from any documented atrial arrhythmias lasting more than 30 seconds, without the use of antiarrhythmic drugs within 12 months. Secondary outcomes included freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence, AF, atrial arrhythmia recurrence after multiple procedures, and documented atrial tachycardia or atrial flutter with or without antiarrhythmic drugs; AF burden; and improvement in quality of life. Patients were monitored with wearable single-lead electrocardiographic (ECG) patches, worn for 24 hours a week, supplemented by symptom-triggered ECGs and Holter monitoring. Results: Among 498 randomized patients, 495 (99.4%) were included in the primary analysis (mean age, 61.1 years [SD, 9.7] years, 361 male [72.9%]). After 12 months, 174 of 246 patients (70.7%) assigned to undergo PVI plus EIVOM and linear ablation and 153 of 249 patients (61.5%) assigned to undergo PVI alone remained free from atrial arrhythmias without taking antiarrhythmic drugs (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54-0.99, P = .045). The intervention effect was consistent across all prespecified subgroups. The comparison of secondary outcomes did not demonstrate significant results. Conclusion: Among patients with persistent AF, linear ablation combined with EIVOM in addition to PVI significantly improved freedom from atrial arrhythmias within 12 months compared with PVI alone. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04497376.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.791
Threshold uncertainty score0.722

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations86
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207