Coronary sinus cannulation predicts atrioventricular nodal reentry as mechanism of supraventricular tachycardia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Common clinical teaching, for invasive electrophysiology, is that if the first year fellow cannulates the coronary sinus (CS) in his first attempt, the arrhythmia is more likely to be atrioventricular nodal reentry tachycardia (AVNRT). This general perception has not yet been clinically tested. We evaluated this theory in prospective patients undergoing an electrophysiological study (EPS) for paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia (PSVT). METHODS: Cohort study. CS ease of cannulation (CSCS) was graded as: 1) 1st year fellow cannulates in first attempt; 2) 1st year fellow needs more than one attempt or maneuver to cannulate the CS; 3) staff physician cannulates in first attempt after the fellow was unsuccessful; 4) staff physician requires more than one maneuver to cannulate the CS; 5) staff physician judges that the cannulation process was extremely difficult. RESULTS: Of the 1361 patients undergoing EPS in our institution, 165 were selected. Age was 49 ± 15 years. AVNRT occurred in 77.6%, atrioventricular reentry tachycardia (AVRT) in 15.1% and atrial tachycardia (AT) in 7.3% of cases. The CSCS = 1 was more prevalent in AVNRT, 89% versus 68% AVRT and 58.3% of AT (P = 0.0005). Patients with CSCS = 1 have a higher chance of the PSVT being AVNRT (odds ratio: 4.41; 95CI: 1.84-10.56; P = 0.0009). CONCLUSION: The CSCS predicts the likelihood of the induced PSVT being AVNRT as compared to AVRT and AT. More studies are required to try to associate this finding to clinical patient characteristics to create a score for PSVT mechanism prediction.
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".