Adenosine Testing in Atrial Flutter Ablation: Unmasking of Dormant Conduction Across the Cavotricuspid Isthmus and Risk of Recurrence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adenosine-induced hyperpolarization may identify pulmonary veins at risk of reconnection following electrical isolation for atrial fibrillation. The potential role of adenosine testing in other arrhythmic substrates, such as cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI)-dependent atrial flutter, remains unclear. We assessed whether dormant conduction across the CTI may be revealed by adenosine after ablation-induced bidirectional block, and its association with recurrent flutter. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients undergoing catheter ablation for CTI-dependent flutter were prospectively studied. After confirming bidirectional block across the CTI by standard pacing maneuvers, adenosine (≥ 12 mg IV) was administered to assess resumption of conduction, followed by isoproterenol (ISP) bolus. Further CTI ablation was performed for persistent (but not transient) resumption of conduction. Bidirectional block across the CTI was achieved in all 81 patients (63 males), age 61.2 ± 11.0 years. The trans-CTI time increased from 71.9 ± 18.1 milliseconds preablation to 166.2 ± 26.4 milliseconds postablation. Adenosine elicited resumption of conduction across the CTI in 7 patients (8.6%), 2 of whom had transient recovery. No additional patient with dormant conduction was identified by ISP. Over a follow-up of 11.8 ± 8.0 months, atrial flutter recurred in 4 (4.9%) patients, 3/7(42.9%) with a positive adenosine challenge versus 1/74 (1.3%) with a negative response, P = 0.0016 (relative risk 31.7). CONCLUSION: Adenosine challenge following atrial flutter ablation provoked transient or persistent resumption of conduction across the CTI in almost 9% of patients and identified a subgroup at higher risk of flutter recurrence. It remains to be determined whether additional ablation guided by adenosine testing during the index procedure may further improve procedural outcomes.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".