Atrial fibrillation ablation with a spring sensor-irrigated contact force-sensing catheter compared with other ablation catheters: systematic literature review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of our review was to systematically assess available evidence on the effectiveness, safety and efficiency of a spring sensor-irrigated contact force (CF) catheter (THERMOCOOL SMARTTOUCH Catheter (ST)) for percutaneous ablation of paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation (AF), compared with other ablation catheters, or with the ST with the operator blinded to CF data. DESIGN: Systematic literature review and meta-analysis. BACKGROUND: Emerging evidence suggests improved clinical outcomes of AF ablation using CF-sensing catheters; however, reviews to date have included data from multiple, distinct CF technologies. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies comparing the use of ST versus other ablation catheters for the treatment of AF. A comprehensive search of electronic and manual sources was conducted. The primary endpoint was freedom from recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmia (AT) at 12 months. Procedural and safety data were also analysed. RESULTS: 0.004) over the comparator group, and the effect size was most evident in paroxysmal AF patients (75.6%vs64.7%; OR 1.560, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.24, p=0.015). Procedure and fluoroscopy times were shorter with ST (p=0.05 and p<0.01, respectively, vs comparator groups). The reduction in procedure time is estimated at 15.5 min (9.0%), and fluoroscopy time 4.8 min (18.7%). Complication rates, including cardiac tamponade, did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the use of other catheters, AF ablation using the CF-sensing ST catheter for AF is associated with improved success rates, shorter procedure and fluoroscopy times and similar safety profile.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".