MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pulsed Field Ablation of Persistent Atrial Fibrillation With Continuous Electrocardiographic Monitoring Follow-Up: ADVANTAGE AF Phase 2

2025· article· en· W4409758630 on OpenAlexaff
Vivek Y. Reddy, Edward P. Gerstenfeld, Boris Schmidt, Jason G. Andrade, Devi G. Nair, Andrea Natale, Walid I. Saliba, Philipp Sommer, Andreas Metzner, Atul Verma, Troy Hounshell, Anish K. Amin, Philip J. Gentlesk, Stanislav Weiner, Frank Cuoco, Jamie Kim, Mohit K. Turagam, Gery Tomassoni, Chinmay Patel, Ziad F. Issa, Michael Shehata, Thomas J. Stoltz, Jonathan D. Raybuck, Torri Schwartz, Brad Sutton, Moussa Mansour

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationCardiologyAblationInternal medicineAtrial flutterCatheter ablationPulmonary veinCohortPopulationImplantable loop recorder

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There are sparse high-quality safety and effectiveness data for pulsed field ablation (PFA) of persistent atrial fibrillation (PerAF), in which lesions beyond pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) are often placed. In addition, no large trials have used insertable cardiac monitors for continuous rhythm monitoring after ablation in patients with PerAF or after PFA in any atrial fibrillation population. In Phase 2 of the ADVANTAGE AF study (A Prospective Single Arm Open Label Study of the FARAPULSE Pulsed Field Ablation System in Subjects With Persistent Atrial Fibrillation), patients with PerAF underwent PFA for PVI and posterior wall ablation (PWA) and, in a subcohort, cavotricuspid isthmus ablation for typical atrial flutter. METHODS: Patients with PerAF underwent PVI and posterior wall ablation with the pentaspline PFA catheter and cavotricuspid isthmus with a novel focal-linear PFA catheter after intravenous nitroglycerin prophylaxis. Patients were followed up for 1 year with continuous rhythm monitoring after ablation with insertable cardiac monitors to emulate traditional intermittent monitoring for the primary efficacy end point and to examine atrial arrhythmia (AA) burden and episode duration. RESULTS: ; left atrium diameter, 4.3±0.6 cm) underwent PVI plus posterior wall ablation (99.6%/100% acute success); a subpopulation (n=141; 55.3%) also received cavotricuspid isthmus PFA, with 98.6% achieving bidirectional block without complications (ST-segment changes, ventricular fibrillation). Cavotricuspid isthmus ablation took 8±13 minutes, using 18±6 pulsed field applications and 4±2 mg IV nitroglycerin. The total procedure and atrial dwell times were 105±36 and 59±24 minutes, respectively. Mimicking traditional monitoring, freedom from AA was 73.4% with adverse events in 2.4%, both meeting prespecified end-point criteria. Freedom from recurrent atrial flutter was 97.2%. Detailed analysis of the full insertable cardiac monitor data revealed freedom from AA of ≥30 seconds in 52.0%, and no episode exceeded 24 hours in 94.0% of this PerAF cohort. Both an AA burden >0.1% and longest episode duration >1 hour were predictive of increased health care use. One-year procedural effectiveness was 71.6% and 70.0% using the thresholds of ≤0.1% burden and <1 hour duration, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In Phase 2 of ADVANTAGE AF, the first multicenter PerAF study of PFA with continuous rhythm monitoring: (1) cavotricuspid isthmus ablation with nitroglycerin prophylaxis was safe and effective, (2) PVI plus posterior wall ablation was safe and effective, and (3) an AA burden <0.1% and AA episode <1 hour duration were end points associated with the lowest health care use. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT05443594.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.515

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations68
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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