Women with persistent atrial fibrillation need more than pulmonary vein isolation: personalised extra-pulmonary vein ablation strategy vs. pulmonary vein isolation alone in the TAILORED-AF trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: There is still conflicting evidence if women with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) profit from a pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) plus strategy. We evaluated the efficacy of a spatio-temporal dispersion-targeted ablation strategy in women from the TAILORED-AF trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: In TAILORED-AF, 370 patients were randomised to either a personalised, artificial intelligence (AI)-guided tailored ablation or to PVI-only. AF substrate mapping data and 12-month ablation outcomes were compared between women and men. Overall, 21% patients were female (70.4 ± 6.9 vs. 64.5 ± 8.5 years for men, P < 0.001). While spatio-temporal dispersion extent was similar between groups, left atrial low-voltage surface area (<0.2 mV) was significantly larger in women (P < 0.01). In women, the single-procedure freedom from AF (76% vs. 50%, log-rank P < 0.001) and any atrial arrhythmia (56% vs. 38%, log-rank P < 0.05) were significantly superior to PVI alone with a tailored procedure. In the PVI-only group, the single-procedure freedom from AF (50% vs. 70%, log-rank P < 0.001) and any atrial arrhythmia (38% vs. 61%, log-rank P < 0.001) were significantly lower in women. After a tailored ablation, no significant differences were observed between women and men regarding freedom from AF (76% vs. 91%, log-rank P = 0.07) or any atrial arrhythmia (56% vs. 62%, log-rank P = 0.69) free survival. CONCLUSION: Compared to men, PVI-only in women with persistent AF leads to a significantly lower freedom from atrial arrhythmia. A personalised spatio-temporal dispersion-targeted ablation strategy led to a higher rate of freedom from any atrial arrhythmia than standard PVI after a single procedure in women and comparable outcomes between women and men. REGISTRATION IDENTIFICATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT04702451.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".