Intramural Ventricular Recording and Pacing in Patients With Refractory Ventricular Tachycardia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ablation of ventricular arrhythmias (VA) can be limited by intramural substrate not amenable to endocardial or epicardial ablation. Feasibility of irrigated needle ablation has been shown, but optimal means of identifying targets is not clear. We analyzed intramural needle electrograms in relation to endocardial electrograms. METHODS AND RESULTS: Eight sequential patients (mean age, 56 years) who had failed 1 to 4 prior ablations underwent irrigated needle ablation were included. At selected sites, the needle was advanced into the myocardium. Bipolar and unipolar electrograms from the needle and catheter tip were analyzed. The needle was deployed at 75 sites with suspected intramural substrate among 2309 mapping sites. Intramural bipolar electrogram amplitude and duration correlated closely with endocardial electrograms, but were greater in amplitude and duration (1.5±1.4 versus 0.6±0.5 mV and 131±66 versus 112±51 ms; P=0.001 for both). During sinus rhythm intramural late potentials tended to be more common than endocardial late potentials (53.6% versus 35.7%; P=0.12). Intramural electrograms during VA preceded endocardial electrograms (-29±34 versus -15±21 ms; P=0.001). Irrigated needle ablation terminated VA at 12 of 28 sites with ablation during VA. Termination site needle electrograms tended to be earlier than nontermination sites (-54±37 versus -36±33 ms pre-QRS; P=0.15). Pacemapping from the needle at 19 sites matched the VA at 18 and showed stimulus to QRS of 60±51 ms. CONCLUSIONS: Recordings from intramural needle may be useful for selecting ablation targets during ventricular tachycardia and for substrate mapping. Further study is needed to develop methods to guide selection of optimal sites for needle deployment and ablation.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".