Determinants of symptom relief and quality of life improvement after atrial fibrillation ablation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The primary goal of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation is to improve AF-related symptoms and quality of life. Previous studies have observed a discrepancy between objective recurrence of AF after ablation and patient-perceived change of symptoms. Although predictors of freedom of AF recurrence after AF ablation have been widely studied, factors associated with symptom relief and quality of life improvement remain underexplored. The present study aimed to investigate determinants of symptom reduction and improvement in quality of life after AF ablation. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 382 AF patients (68% paroxysmal AF, 67% male, mean age 63 ± 9 years) undergoing AF ablation were included. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed using the Toronto Atrial Fibrillation Severity Scale (AFSS) and 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) score. Patients completed both the AFSS and SF-36 score pre-ablation, and post-ablation at 4 months and 1 year follow-up. Atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence was documented in 139 patients (36%) at 1 year follow-up. AF symptom severity, patient-perceived AF burden and quality of life improved from baseline to 1 year follow-up, particularly in patients without atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence. Greater baseline AFSS-derived symptom severity and patient-perceived AF burden were associated with a greater improvement of AF symptom severity and patient-perceived AF burden after ablation. CONCLUSION: This study shows that patients with lower quality of life and greater AF symptom severity and patient-perceived AF burden benefit most from AF ablation, suggesting that more emphasis should be put on the burden of AF symptoms in clinical decision-making.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".