Further Evidence for the “Muscle Bundle” Hypothesis of Cavotricuspid Isthmus Conduction: Physiological Proof, with Clinical Implications for Ablation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: It has been suggested that the cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) is composed of discrete muscle bundles with preferred paths of conduction. An ablation technique targeting high-voltage local electrograms (maximum voltage guided or MVG technique) has been described with the aim of preferentially targeting the muscle bundles. We hypothesized that the MVG technique could provide isthmus block even if the high voltage targets were clearly separated on different ablation lines. In contrast, conduction over a continuous sheet of muscle would require a single continuous ablation line. METHODS: Twenty-two consecutive patients (mean age 65 ± 11.7, 5 females) underwent ablation using the MVG technique on 2 noncontiguous lines in the CTI. Ablation lesions were first applied at the septal aspect of the CTI, targeting only the ventricular (anterior) aspect of the annulus. A line distinctly lateral and noncontiguous to the first was then chosen to target high voltage potentials on the atrial (posterior) aspect of the CTI. RESULTS: Complete CTI block was achieved in all study patients without complication. A mean of 7.8 ± 3.7 ablation lesions were required. Mean ablation time was 401.0 ± 414.5 seconds. CONCLUSION: Two nonoverlapping incomplete lines of ablation in the CTI consistently lead to bidirectional conduction block. This further supports the hypothesis that conduction over the CTI occurs over discrete muscle bundles. These bundles can be targeted individually for ablation without the need to ablate a continuous line over the CTI.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".