Double Transseptal Puncture for Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation: Safety of the Technique and Its Use in the Outpatient Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. For pulmonary vein isolation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), some centers use the double transseptal puncture technique for catheter access in order to facilitate catheter manipulation within the left atrium. However, no safety data has so far been published using this approach. Method. 269 ablation procedures were performed in 243 patients (mean age 56.6 ± 9.3 years, 75% men) using the double transseptal puncture for catheter access in all cases. Patients were considered for ablation of paroxysmal (80%), persistent (19%), and permanent (1%) AF. 230 procedures were performed on an outpatient basis (85.5%), and 26 were repeat procedures (9.7%). Results. The double transseptal puncture catheter access was successfully achieved in all patients. The procedural success with the endpoint of pulmonary vein isolation was reached in 255 procedures (95%). A total of 1048 out of 1062 pulmonary veins (99%) were successfully isolated. Major complications occurred in eight patients (3.0%). Of these, seven patients (2.6%) had pericardial effusion requiring percutaneous drainage, and one patient (0.4%) suffered a minor reversible stroke. One patient (0.4%) had a minor air embolism with transient symptoms. Conclusion. The double transseptal puncture catheterization technique allows easy catheter manipulation within the left atrium to reach the goal of acute procedural success in AF ablation. Procedure-related complications are rare, and the technique can be used safely for AF ablation in the outpatient setting.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".