Abstract 21364: Multicenter Prospective Study Comparing Phased Multipolar versus Traditional Radiofrequency Ablation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Multipolar, phased radiofrequency (RF) catheter ablation (PVAC) has been associated with reduced procedural times compared to traditional RF. We performed a multicenter study to assess the efficacy and efficiency of using this catheter. Methods: This is a multicenter, sequential, prospective, cohort study between 2012 to 2016 in 6 tertiary care centers (NCT01562912). Patients were enrolled if they had symptomatic, paroxysmal AF (less than 7 days) refractory to at least one antiarrhythmic medication. Patients were enrolled in a 2:1 ratio of PVAC (group A) to control point-by-point RF with 3D mapping (group B). ECG and 48 hour Holter monitor were used to assess patients at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months post-ablation follow up. Recurrence was defined as any atrial arrhythmia >30 seconds excluding an initial 3 month blanking period. Results: Overall, 230 patients consisting of 162 males (70.4%) with mean age 57±11 years were analyzed. By Kaplan-Meier analysis, freedom from any atrial arrhythmia at 12 months was 49% and 69.2% in group A and B respectively (p=0.033) (Figure1). Among patients with recurrence, 14.7% (21) in group A and 7.7% (6) in group B had redo procedure within 12 month post procedure(p=0.12). Procedure time was significantly lower in Group A than Group B (P<0.0001). There was no significant difference in fluoroscopy time between the two groups (p=0.49). Stroke was not reported in any of the patients. Pulmonary Embolism, occurred in 1.3% of patients in group B. Pericardial effusion occurred in 1.4% in group A and 2.6% in group B. Tamponade occurred in 3.8% of patients in group B. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that the PVAC catheter is associated with significantly reduced procedure times for AF ablation, however, AF recurrence rates may be higher than contemporary point-by-point RF ablation with 3D mapping technology.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".