Comparison of efficacy of phased multipolar versus traditional radiofrequency ablation: A prospective, multicenter study (CAPCOST)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multipolar phased pulmonary vein ablation catheter (PVAC), specifically its second-generation (PVAC-Gold), has been associated with reduced procedural time for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation compared to traditional catheters. We performed this study to compare the efficacy of PVAC with point-by-point radiofrequency (RF) ablation. METHODS: This is a multicenter-cohort study (2012-2017), involving patients with symptomatic, paroxysmal AF refractory to at least one antiarrhythmic medication. Overall, 230 patients were enrolled to (A) PVAC and (B) control groups. Subanalyses were done for ablations performed with PVAC-Gold, and for ablations performed without left atrial (LA) ablation in addition to pulmonary vein isolation. Electrocardiogram and 48-h Holter monitoring were used to assess patients at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months postablation. Recurrence was defined as any atrial arrhythmia >30 s excluding an initial 3-month blanking period. RESULTS: Freedom from any atrial arrhythmia at 12 months postablation was 35.70% and 52.80% in groups A and B, respectively (P = .01). Freedom from atrial arrhythmia was not significantly different when limiting the PVAC cohort to PVAC-Gold and excluding patients with additional LA ablation (A: 44.30%; B: 44.30%, P = .80). Procedural and ablation time was significantly lower in group A than B. Multivariate regression model showed female gender (odds ratio [OR] = 2.90) and recurrence during blanking period (OR = 6.60) as significant predictors of recurrence. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that PVAC may achieve less freedom from AF than point-by-point RF; however, efficacy is similar when comparing PVAC-Gold and point-by-point stand-alone PV isolation. PVAC is associated with significantly reduced procedural times for AF 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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".