Epicardial and hybrid surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation: 1-year follow-up outcomes of the EORP EHAFA registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Stand-alone minimal invasive epicardial and hybrid atrial fibrillation ablation (EHAFA) has evolved to a recognized treatment option in challenging patients. The EHAFA registry was initiated to describe the applied diagnostic and therapeutic approaches used in routine practice for these procedures, as well as the outcomes in terms of rhythm, symptoms, and complications. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between January 2016 and March 2018, patients who underwent an EHAFA procedure for all types of atrial fibrillation (AF) were consecutively enrolled in the international, prospective, observational EHAFA registry. Follow-up occurred after 1 year. A total of 468 patients were enrolled from 17 centres in 10 countries. Stand-alone ablation (n = 464) was performed epicardially in 47% (n = 220) or as epi-/endocardial hybrid in 53% (n = 244). The predominate type of AF was non-paroxysmal in 74% (n = 342), and 36% (n = 166) of patients had failed previous catheter ablation. The main lesion sets applied consisted of pulmonary vein isolation (99%, n = 460) and isolation of the left atrial (LA) posterior wall (82%, n = 383). In 82% (n = 382), the LA appendage was managed. The overall in-hospital major complication rate was 8.2% (n = 38/464). Freedom from atrial arrhythmias > 30 s with and without antiarrhythmic drug usage was 79% and 64% (n = 279/353, n = 223/351, respectively). The EHRA score at follow-up was clearly reduced compared to preoperatively (EHRA I: 72%, n = 233/325, vs. 3%, n = 14/464). CONCLUSION: This international registry revealed good rhythm control efficacy for epicardial and hybrid AF ablation in patients with advanced AF, leading to improvement in AF-related symptoms. However, a certain associated complication rate needs to be considered.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".