MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2556177855 · doi:10.1111/pace.12975

Pulmonary Vein Isolation with the Cryoballoon Technique: Feasibility, Procedural Outcomes, and Adoption in the Real World

2016· article· en· W2556177855 on OpenAlexaff
Luigi Padeletti, Antonio Curnis, Claudio Tondo, Maurizio Lunati, Stefano Porcellini, Roberto Verlato, Luigi Sciarra, Gaetano Senatore, Domenico Catanzariti, Loira Leoni, Maurizio Landolina, Pietro Delise, Saverio Iacopino, Paolo Pieragnoli, Giuseppe Arena

Bibliographic record

VenuePacing and Clinical Electrophysiology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsHealth Care Foundation
FundersMedtronic
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationPulmonary veinAblationRefractory (planetary science)DemographicsFluoroscopyCatheter ablationPresyncopeSingle CenterCohortSurgeryInternal medicineHeart rate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation (CA) is recommended for patients with drug refractory symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF). "One Shot" catheters have been introduced to simplify CA and cryoballoon ablation (CBA) is spreading rapidly. Few real-world data are available on standard clinical practice, mainly from single-center experience. We aimed to evaluate clinical settings, demographics, and acute procedural outcomes in a large cohort of patients treated with CBA. METHODS: A total of 903 patients (73% male, mean age 59 ± 11) underwent pulmonary vein CBA. Correlations between the patient's inclusion time and clinical characteristics, procedure duration, acute success rate, and intraprocedural complications were evaluated. RESULTS: Seventy-seven percent of patients were affected by paroxysmal AF and 23% by persistent AF. Overall, acute success rate was 97.9% and periprocedural complications were observed in 35 (3.9%) patients, 13 (1.4%) of which were classified as major complications. With respect to the patient's inclusion time analysis, an increase in treatment of persistent AF was observed, a significant decrease in CBA times (procedure, ablation, and fluoroscopy: 136.0 ± 46.5 minutes, 28.8 ± 19.6 minutes, and 34.3 ± 15.4 minutes, respectively) was observed, with comparable acute success rate and intraprocedural complications over time. The rate of major complications was extremely low (1.4%); no death, atrioesophageal fistula, stroke, or other major periinterventional or late complications occurred. CONCLUSION: This series represents the largest experience of CBA in the treatment of AF that also describes the adoption curve of this relatively recent technology. CBA showed an excellent safety profile when performed in a large real-world clinical setting, with satisfactory acute success rate and, on average, short procedural times. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01007474).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.167

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.318 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePacing and Clinical ElectrophysiologySame topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207