The use of anticoagulation during the periprocedure period of atrial fibrillation ablation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Ablation is a treatment option for selected patients with atrial fibrillation that is being used more frequently, increasing the importance of awareness of both its risks and benefits. This review discusses the thromboembolic and bleeding risks during ablation, strategies to minimize these risks and use of long-term oral anticoagulation post ablation. RECENT FINDINGS: Thromboembolic and bleeding risks imparted by atrial fibrillation ablation can be minimized by echocardiography, optimal intraprocedural anticoagulation, and use of irrigated catheters and access sheaths with constant heparinized saline flow. Additionally, a strategic approach to periprocedural anticoagulation that may include continuation of warfarin, bridging with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), or use of aspirin alone is essential in the balance of thrombotic and hemorrhagic risks. Novel anticoagulants (direct thrombin inhibitors or anti-Xa inhibitors) may add further options. SUMMARY: The use of atrial fibrillation ablation has increased over the past decade. Along with technique and technology advances that have improved the success of ablation, strides have been made in minimizing thromboembolic and bleeding risks and in the availability of a broader choice of anticoagulants. Research is ongoing to identify patients most suitable for ablation and to determine the long-term efficacy and safety of this treatment option.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".