Long-term outcomes of catheter ablation compared with medical therapy in atrial fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The long-term effects of catheter ablation (CA) compared with medical therapy on cardiovascular outcomes for atrial fibrillation (AF) remain undetermined. OBJECTIVE: Using a population-based cohort, we sought to determine what the association between CA and medical therapy was on these outcomes. METHODS: By use of Alberta administrative data, patients with AF as the primary diagnosis during hospitalization, emergency department visit, or physician visit were included between October 1, 2008, and March 31, 2018. Based on therapy received, patients were assigned to categories of CA, rate control, or rhythm control with medication. The association of treatment with the primary composite outcome of all-cause death, hospitalization for heart failure, or stroke was examined after adjustment for age, sex, comorbidities, and baseline medications. RESULTS: Of 39,966 treated AF patients, 2077 (5.2%), 29,467 (73.7%), and 8422 (21.1%) were treated with CA, rate control, and rhythm control with medication, respectively. Patients in the CA group had a lower incidence of the primary outcome (4.0/100 person-years) compared with the rate control group (8.7/100 person-years) or the rhythm control with medication group (6.8/100 person-years) during a median follow-up of 6.3 years. In multivariable analysis, compared with CA, both rate control (hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.50) and rhythm control with medication (hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.43) were associated with a higher risk of the primary outcome. CONCLUSION: In this cohort study, patients who received CA demonstrated a reduction in the risk of long-term adverse cardiovascular outcomes compared with medical therapy in patients with AF, providing some data to indicate the effects of CA in the long-term.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".