Enlargement of Catheter Ablation Lesions in Infant Hearts With Cryothermal Versus Radiofrequency Energy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency catheter ablation in immature hearts has been associated with marked enlargement of lesions over time, with potential for related late adverse events. It remains unknown whether cryothermal ablation lesions display a similar pattern of growth. METHODS AND RESULTS: Ablation lesions (n=384) were performed in 32 infant miniature swine in right and left atria, ventricles, and atrioventricular (AV) grooves preselected by a randomized factorial design devised to compare radiofrequency and cryothermal lesions produced by 7F 4-mm electrode-tip catheters. Animals were euthanized acutely or at 1, 6, or 12 months, according to the randomization scheme. The miniature swine weighed 8.8±1.2 kg and were 63±13 days of age at time of ablation. The minimum temperature during cryoablation was -79.8±3.4°C and the average temperature during radiofrequency ablation was 54.4±5.5°C. On morphometric analyses, no differences in the rate of growth of ablation lesions were noted between the 2 energy modalities in atria (P=0.44), ventricles (P=0.57), or AV grooves (P=0.69). Lesion volumes increased 3.3-fold in atria (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.3 to 4.3; P=0.001) and 2.2-fold in ventricles (95% CI, 1.4 to 3.0; P<0.0001), with the difference between chambers being nonsignificant (P=0.22). Whereas the depth of AV groove lesions increased over time (1.9-fold; 95% CI, 1.5 to 2.3; P<0.0001), lesion volumes did not enlarge significantly (1.5-fold; 95% CI, 0.4 to 2.6; P=0.45). CONCLUSIONS: Ablation lesions produced by cryothermal energy in immature atrial and ventricular myocardium enlarge to a similar extent to radiofrequency ablation. In contrast, AV groove lesion volumes do not increase significantly with either energy modality.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".