Impact of a Novel Catheter Tracking System on Radiation Exposure during the Procedural Phases of Atrial Fibrillation and Flutter Ablation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fluoroscopic guidance is used to position catheters during cardiac ablation. We evaluated the impact of a novel nonfluoroscopic sensor-guided electromagnetic navigation system (MG) on radiation exposure during catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) or atrial flutter (AFL). METHODS: A total of 134 consecutive patients referred for ablation of AF (n = 44) or AFL (n = 90) ablation were prospectively enrolled. In one group the MG system was used for nonfluoroscopic catheter positioning, whereas in the conventional group standard fluoroscopy was utilized. Fluoroscopy times were assessed for each stage of procedure and total radiation exposure was quantified. RESULTS: Patient characteristics were similar between the groups. The procedural end point was achieved in all. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) fluoroscopy times were 12.5 minutes (7.6, 17.4) MG group versus 21.5 minutes (15.3, 23.0) conventional group (P < 0.0001) for AF ablation, and 0.8 minutes (0.4, 2.5) MG group versus 9.9 minutes (5.1, 22.5) conventional group (P < 0.0001) for AFL ablation. Median (IQR) total radiation exposure (μGy·m(2)) was 1,107 (906, 2,033) MG group versus 2,835 (1,688, 3,855) conventional group (P = 0.0001) for AF ablation, and 161 (65, 537) MG group versus 1,651 (796, 4,569) conventional group (P < 0.0001) for AFL ablation. No difference in total procedural time was seen. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a novel nonfluoroscopic catheter tracking system is associated with a significant reduction in radiation exposure during AF and AFL ablation (61% and 90% reduction, respectively). In the era of heightened awareness of the importance of radiation reduction, this system represents a safe and efficient tool to decrease radiation exposure during electrophysiological ablation procedures.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".