MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410621834 · doi:10.1093/europace/euaf085.454

Women and atrial fibrillation: artificial intelligence-guided catheter ablation is associated with a higher freedom from any arrhythmia versus pulmonary vein isolation in women (TAILORED-AF trial)

2025· article· en· W4410621834 on OpenAlexaff
Isabel Deisenhofer, J.-P. Albenque, Sonia Busch, Edouard Gitenay, Marie‐Sophie Nguyen‐Tu, Sabine Lotteau, Anas El-Benna, P Milpied, Jérôme Kalifa, Tom De Potter, Seth Goldbarg, Atul Verma, John D. Hummel

Bibliographic record

VenueEP Europace · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtrial fibrillationPulmonary veinCatheter ablationIsolation (microbiology)CardiologyInternal medicineAblationMedicineBioinformatics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background/Introduction Atrial fibrillation (AF) affects women and men differently, in particular when considering clinical presentation and quality of life. Despite having generally more symptoms, women are less likely to undergo AF ablation and have a higher rate of AF recurrence after undergoing ablation. Particularly, extra-PV ablation approaches have not proven advantageous versus pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) alone in women. The TAILORED-AF randomised clinical trial (NCT04702451) demonstrated a reduced rate of AF recurrence after a de novo catheter ablation targeting artificial intelligence (AI)-guided spatiotemporal dispersion in addition to PVI. Purpose To investigate whether an AI-guided, spatiotemporal based-ablation approach is superior to PVI in women with persistent AF. Methods TAILORED-AF randomised patients to an AI-guided tailored ablation or PVI-only. We compared outcomes and dispersion characteristics between female and male patients. Results From the 370 patients treated in the TAILORED-AF trial, 77 (21%) were female. Women were significantly older (72±7 vs 65±12 years, p<0.001) and had a higher CHA2DS2-VASc score (3 [2-4] vs 2 [1-3], p<0.001). There was a larger percentage of women with a body mass index over 30kg/m2 (53% vs 40%, p=0.04), and a smaller percentage with diabetes or vascular disease (9 vs 19%, p=0.02 and 8% vs 17%, p=0.02, respectively). No difference was observed in AF duration (6±7 vs 6±5 months, p=0.31) and in left ventricular ejection fraction (55±10% vs 55±10%, p=0.81). Procedure and radiofrequency times and AF termination rates were not different between women and men (179±76 min vs 178±55, p=0.53, 45±21 min vs 41±16 min, p=0.29 and 64% vs 66%, p=0.84, respectively). There was no sex-related differences in complications following a Tailored ablation. Analyses of spatiotemporal dispersion location collected with electroanatomic mapping showed no sex-related differences in dispersion extent in the left atrium (LA) (13.7% in women vs 14.4% in men, p=0.88) or the right atrium (RA) (0.27% in women vs 0.82% in men, p=0.09). By contrast, the percentage of low voltage surface area in AF (<0.2mV) was significantly higher in women in the LA (30.7% [21.2-39.7] vs 18.0% [10.7-30.8], p<0.01). As expected based on previous reports, less women were free from AF or AF/atrial tachycardia (AT) after one procedure compared to men in the Tailored arm (74% vs 91% in men, log-rank p<0.001 and 56% vs 61% in men, log-rank p=0.04, respectively). Importantly, the rates of 12-month freedom from AF and AF/AT after a single procedure were significantly higher post-Tailored ablation compared to PVI only (74% vs 57%, log-rank p=0.01 and 56% vs 46%, log-rank p<0.01, respectively). Conclusion(s) Tailored ablation leads to a higher rate of freedom from any atrial arrhythmia after a single procedure in women.12-month follow-up outcomes

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.445
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEP EuropaceSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207