MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416106030 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa2509688

Antithrombotic Therapy after Successful Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation

2025· article· en· W4416106030 on OpenAlexafffund
Atul Verma, David H. Birnie, Chenyang Jiang, Hein Heidbüchel, Gerhard Hindricks, Paulus Kirchhof, Jeff S. Healey, Yunhe Wang, Nikolaos Dagres, Marc W. Deyell, Prashanthan Sanders, Rajeev K. Pathak, Pieter Koopman, Dieter Nuyens, Paul Novak, Guy Amit, Charles Dussault, Bhavanesh Makanjee, F. Russell Quinn, Umjeet Jolly, Leon Iden, Malte Kuniss, Mukul Sharma, Andrew C.T. Ha, Vidal Essebag, Jean Champagne, Michael D. Hill, Eric E. Smith, George A. Wells

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de QuébecUniversity Health NetworkLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaRoyal Jubilee HospitalUniversity of CalgarySt Mary's Hospital CentreThe Scarborough HospitalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of TorontoUniversité de SherbrookeSt. Paul's HospitalMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health SciencesUniversity of OttawaMcGill University Health Centre
FundersCumming School of Medicine, University of CalgaryUniversity of TorontoBiotronikBayerCanadian Stroke NetworkCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAbbott CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsAtrial fibrillationRivaroxabanCatheter ablationStroke (engine)AntithromboticAblation of atrial fibrillationAblationIncidence (geometry)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Whether successful catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation eliminates the need for long-term oral anticoagulant therapy is unknown. METHODS: -VASc score (scores range from 0 to 9, with higher scores indicating a higher risk of stroke) of 1 or more (or ≥2 for women or for patients in whom vascular disease was a risk factor). Patients were randomly assigned to receive either aspirin (at a dose of 70 to 120 mg daily, depending on availability in the local jurisdiction) or rivaroxaban (at a dose of 15 mg) and followed for 3 years. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the head was performed after enrollment and at 3 years. The primary outcome was a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, or new covert embolic stroke (defined by ≥1 new infarct measuring ≥15 mm on MRI) at 3 years. RESULTS: A total of 641 patients were assigned to the rivaroxaban group and 643 to the aspirin group. A primary-outcome event occurred in 5 patients (0.31 events per 100 patient-years) in the rivaroxaban group and in 9 patients (0.66 events per 100 patient-years) in the aspirin group (relative risk, 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19 to 1.65; absolute risk difference at 3 years, -0.6 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.8 to 0.5; P = 0.28). New cerebral infarcts measuring less than 15 mm occurred in 22 of 568 patients (3.9%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 26 of 590 patients (4.4%) in the aspirin group (relative risk, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.55). Fatal or major bleeding (the composite primary safety outcome) had occurred in 10 patients (1.6%) with rivaroxaban and in 4 patients (0.6%) with aspirin (hazard ratio, 2.51; 95% CI, 0.79 to 7.95) at 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who had had successful catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation at least 1 year earlier and had risk factors for stroke, treatment with rivaroxaban did not result in a significantly lower incidence of a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, or new covert embolic stroke than treatment with aspirin. (Funded by Bayer and others; OCEAN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02168829.).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations37
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207