P888Cryoablation as standard treatment of atrial flutter (CASTAF)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Cryoablation (Cryo) of cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI)-dependent atrial flutter (AFL) has been shown to be non-inferior to radiofrequency ablation (RF) in terms of ablation success and is associated with less pain. However, procedural time has been significantly longer with Cryo compared to RF. A possible explanation for this could be that operators had less experience with Cryo than with RF. Purpose: To test the hypothesis that cryoablation of CTI-dependent AFL is a method with high efficacy and reasonable procedure-time in the hands of experienced operators. Methods: This prospective 2-center study included 184 patients with CTI-dependent AFL - median age 66 years (range 28-83), 159 men (86%). Cryoablation was performed using a 9F, 8 mm tip catheter (Freezor MAX, Medtronic, Quebec, Canada). Ablation end-point was bidirectional CTI-block. Pain was evaluated with a visual analogue scale (VAS 0-10). All operators had experience of at least 25 previous CTI-ablations with Cryo. Results: The acute success rate was 89%. Procedural time including an observation period of 30 minutes, was 115±36 minutes which is comparable with procedural times for RF in previous studies. Fluoroscopy time was 11 ± 9 min. Cryoablation was perceived as relatively pain- free by the patients, VAS 1.8±1.2. Success rate at 12-months follow-up was 87%. No major adverse events occurred. Conclusion: Cryoablation of CTI-dependent AFL is effective, with a low level of procedure-related pain. In experienced hands procedure time is similar to RF 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 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) | 0.004 | 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".