MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Lower Incidence of Thrombus Formation With Cryoenergy Versus Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation

2003· article· en· W2009802093 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineThrombusAblationCryoablationCatheter ablationCatheterThrombosisCardiologyRadiofrequency ablationLesionInternal medicineNuclear medicineRadiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency (RF) catheter ablation is limited by thromboembolic complications. The objective of this study was to compare the incidence and characteristics of thrombi complicating RF and cryoenergy ablation, a novel technology for the catheter-based treatment of arrhythmias. METHODS AND RESULTS: Ablation lesions (n=197) were performed in 22 mongrel dogs at right atrial, right ventricular, and left ventricular sites preselected by a randomized factorial design devised to compare RF ablation with cryocatheter configurations of varying sizes (7F and 9F), cooling rates (-1 degrees C/s, -5 degrees C/s, and -20 degrees C/s) and target temperatures (-55 degrees C and -75 degrees C). Animals were pretreated with acetylsalicylic acid and received intraprocedural intravenous unfractionated heparin. Seven days after ablation, the incidence of thrombus formation was significantly higher with RF than with cryoablation (75.8% versus 30.1%, P=0.0005). In a multiple regression model, RF energy remained an independent predictor of thrombus formation compared with cryoenergy (OR, 5.6; 95% CI, 1.7, 18.1; P=0.0042). Thrombus volume was also significantly greater with RF than with cryoablation (median, 2.8 versus 0.0 mm3; P<0.0001). More voluminous thrombi were associated with larger RF lesions, but cryolesion dimensions were not predictive of thrombus size. CONCLUSIONS: RF energy is significantly more thrombogenic than cryoenergy, with a higher incidence of thrombus formation and larger thrombus volumes. The extent of hyperthermic tissue injury is positively correlated with thrombus bulk, whereas cryoenergy lesion size does not predict thrombus volume, most likely reflecting intact tissue ultrastructure with endothelial cell preservation.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it