Pulmonary Vein Isolation Using a Second‐Generation Cryoballoon Catheter: A Randomized Comparison of Ablation Duration and Method of Deflation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Optimal cryoballoon ablation parameters for pulmonary vein (PV) isolation remain to be defined. We conducted a randomized preclinical trial to compare 2- versus 4-minute ablation lesions and assess the safety of active (forced) cryoballoon deflation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Thirty-two dogs underwent PV isolation with a second-generation 23 mm cryoballoon catheter. The left superior (LSPV) and inferior (LIPV) PVs were randomized in a factorial design to (1) a single 2- versus 4-minute cryoapplication, and (2) passive versus active cryoballoon deflation. Animals were survived for 30 days, after which histopathologic analysis was performed. Acute PV isolation was attained in 89.8% of PVs after a single application (93.8% LSPV, 85.2% LIPV; P = 0.2823). Mean time to PV isolation was 29.5 ± 18.5 seconds. Although 4-minute lesions were associated with a thicker neointima than 2-minute lesions (223.8 μm versus 135.6 μm; P = 0.007), no differences were observed in procedural characteristics (freezing temperature, rewarming time), rates of acute PV isolation, or the achievement of complete circumferentially transmural lesions at 30 days (78.7% overall; 86.2% for 2 minutes vs 70.0% for 4 minutes; P = 0.285). Active deflation was associated with faster balloon rewarming but not with significant differences in mean or maximum neointimal thickness. CONCLUSION: A single application with the second-generation cryoballoon catheter results in a high rate of PV isolation. The degree of vascular injury was not increased by active balloon deflation and no differences in acute efficacy or mature transmural circumferential lesions were observed with 2- versus 4-minute applications.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".