Contact-force-guided vs. contact-force-blinded catheter ablation of typical atrial flutter: a prospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: It remains unknown whether contact force (CF) sensing technology is of value for cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) ablation. We prospectively evaluated procedural parameters and outcomes of CF-guided vs. CF-blinded CTI ablation for typical atrial flutter (AFL). METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 70 consecutive patients (62.5 ± 10.9 years) undergoing CTI ablation for AFL were prospectively enrolled, 35 in CF-blinded and 35 in CF-guided groups. A CF-sensing catheter (power 25-35 W) was used in all. In the CF-guided group, CF target range was 10-25 g, whereas in the CF-blinded group, the operator was blinded to CF. The isthmus was divided into anterior, middle, and posterior segments for region-specific CF analysis. The procedural endpoint of bidirectional isthmus block following a 20-min observation period was achieved in all. A trend towards lower fluoroscopy and procedure duration was observed when the CF-guided group was compared with the CF-blinded group. The total radiofrequency (RF) energy delivery time required to achieve bidirectional block was significantly lower in the CF-guided vs. CF-blinded group [10.0 min (IQR 8.3;15.1) vs. 15.9 min (IQR 9.6;24.7), P= 0.0020], with a significant inverse correlation between CF and total RF delivery time (r = -0.36; P= 0.0027). Mean CF measurements significantly increased from anterior to posterior anatomical zones of CTI in the CF-blinded group (ANOVA P= 0.0466). CONCLUSIONS: Catheter ablation of AFL guided by real-time CF assessment results in a significant reduction in total RF delivery time. Real-time CF measurements facilitate the maintenance of homogenous efficient contact all along the CTI, particularly in the anterior segment where CF is generally lower.
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) | 0.001 | 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".