MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416391062 · doi:10.1016/j.jacep.2025.09.041

Pulmonary Vein Isolation Only for Atrial Fibrillation With Heart Failure (POLAR-HF)

2025· article· en· W4416391062 on OpenAlexaff
Andreas A. Boehmer, Moritz Rothe, Jason G. Andrade, L Wiedenmann, P Spork, Katia Y Schneider, Elena Nussbaum, Christoph Keim, Peter Weiß, Bianca C. Dobre, Sebastian Feickert, Christian Ruckes, Katia Dyrda, Bernhard M. Kaess, Stanley Nattel, Joachim R. Ehrlich

Bibliographic record

VenueJACC. Clinical electrophysiology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAtrial fibrillationHeart failurePulmonary veinIsolation (microbiology)Heart Rhythm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are both associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Ablation-based rhythm control, particularly using radiofrequency ablation with disparate strategies, has demonstrated clinical benefit. However, prospective data evaluating a pulmonary vein isolation (PVI)-only strategy in HFrEF are lacking, and no studies have directly compared ablation efficacy between patients with and without HFrEF. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess whether a PVI-only approach using cryoballoon ablation in patients with HFrEF (LVEF ≤40%) is noninferior to PVI-only in patients without HFrEF regarding rhythm control efficacy, and to describe safety outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, investigator-initiated, single-center, noninferiority, observational study with propensity score matching. The primary efficacy endpoint was the first documented recurrence of any atrial arrhythmia after a 90-day blanking period. Safety endpoints included death, cerebrovascular events, and procedure-related adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 1,420 patients (paroxysmal and persistent AF) underwent PVI. With propensity score matching, 1,044 patients were analyzed in a 1:5 ratio. Over a mean follow-up of 2 years, the primary efficacy endpoint occurred in 76 (43.7%) of 174 patients with HFrEF and in 379 (43.6%) of 870 without HFrEF (HR: 1.01; 95% CI: -∞ to 1.24; P = 0.005 for noninferiority). The incidence of all-cause mortality was numerically higher in patients with HFrEF (6.3% vs 3.4%; P = 0.07), while rates of procedure-related safety events were similar between groups (2.9% vs 4.1%; P = 0.53). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with AF undergoing ablation, a PVI-only approach shows noninferior rhythm control efficacy and comparable procedural safety in patients with HFrEF compared with those without HFrEF. (Cryoballoon Pulmonary Isolation for Atrial Fibrillation With Heart Failure [POLAR-HF]; NCT04461691).

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)0.001
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 score0.254
Threshold uncertainty score0.680

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.345 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJACC. Clinical electrophysiologySame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207