When should we recommend catheter ablation for patients with the Wolff–Parkinson–White syndrome?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Catheter ablation has been proven as very effective and safe therapy for patients with symptomatic Wolff-Parkinson-White (WPW) syndrome. Its application in asymptomatic individuals with WPW pattern remains controversial. This review will elaborate on the role of catheter ablation in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients with WPW pattern on ECG. RECENT FINDINGS: Several recent prospective studies evaluated invasive risk stratification followed by prophylactic catheter ablation in asymptomatic patients with WPW pattern. Inducibility of arrhythmias in these patients during invasive electrophysiological study was shown to predict the development of future symptomatic arrhythmias. Although ablation of accessory pathways performed in 'inducible' patients decreased the incidence of subsequent symptomatic arrhythmias, the studies were not powered to detect a reduction in life-threatening arrhythmias. SUMMARY: Radiofrequency catheter ablation remains the first-line therapy for patients with symptomatic WPW syndrome. Invasive electrophysiological study and possible ablation of accessory pathway may be offered to well informed asymptomatic individuals with WPW if they are willing to trade the very small risk of subsequent sudden death or incapacity for a small immediate procedural risk of serious complications or death. Asymptomatic patients may require invasive risk stratification and possible catheter ablation for important social or professional reasons.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".