Early recurrence of atrial arrhythmia following catheter ablation of atrial tachycardia consecutive to ablation of atrial fibrillation using the updated blanking period
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background In patients undergoing catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF), arrhythmia recurrence during the blanking period is usually not considered failure of treatment. The prognostic significance of early recurrence of atrial arrhythmia following ablation of atrial tachycardia (AT) consecutive to ablation of AF is less certain. Objective To explore the association between early and late recurrence of atrial arrhythmia following ablation of AT consecutive to ablation of AF. Methods Patients undergoing a first ablation of AT consecutive to ablation of atrial fibrillation between 2015 and 2021 were included in this retrospective, single center, observational cohort study. Recurrent atrial arrythmia was defined as AT or AF lasting more than 30 seconds. Regression models were built to assess the association between early (within 56 days) and late (beyond 56 days) recurrence of AT. Results A total of 194 patients were included (mean age 67 ± 10 years, 63% male), of whom 71 (37%) had had pulmonary vein isolation only, and 123 (63%) had received complex ablation of atrial fibrillation during their index procedure. Fifty-two patients (27%) had early recurrence of atrial arrhythmia. During a mean follow-up of 23.6 ± 15.5 months, 118 patients (61%) had late recurrence of atrial arrhythmia (111 with AT, 7 with AF). Early recurrence was associated with late recurrence (HR: 1.53 CI: 1.05 – 2.34, p=0.02). Conclusion One in four patients undergoing catheter ablation of AT consecutive to ablation of AF had recurrent atrial arrhythmia within 56 days after ablation. Early recurrence was associated with late recurrence of atrial arrhythmia.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".