MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2981723392 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz745.0919

P4526Implant procedure and lead handling characteristics of a novel active fixation quadripolar lead: Results from the Attain Stability Quad clinical trial

2019· article· en· W2981723392 on OpenAlexaff
Svein Færestrand, George H. Crossley, François Philippon, Raymond Yee, Melissa H. Kong, Axel Kloppe, M G Bongiorni, Peter Paul H.M. Delnoy, L Shelby, Mireille M. E. van Ginneken, Kevin Jackson

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity HospitalInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLead (geology)ImplantFixation (population genetics)Cardiac resynchronization therapySurgeryCatheterClinical trialClinical PracticeCardiologyNuclear medicineInternal medicineHeart failureEjection fractionPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Dislodgements of left ventricular (LV) leads are still a challenging problem in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The Attain Stability Quad (ASQuad) MRI SureScan 4798 steroid-eluting, quadripolar LV lead has a side-helix to enable the lead to be actively fixated to the vessel wall. The uniquely designed active fixation can be advantageous in vessels that are wide or have short take-offs. Further, the helix easily elongates to allow for future extraction. Purpose To report on the handling, performance and safety of ASQuad LV lead in a large clinical study. Methods The ASQuad clinical study is a prospective clinical trial from 50 centers in 10 countries enrolling CRT candidates implanted with the ASQuad LV lead. Aside from evaluating safety and effectiveness of the LV lead, the trial specifically collected data on parameters related to lead stability during and post implant. Results Of 440 enrolled patients (74.8% male, average age 70±11 years) that underwent an implant attempt, 426 (96.8%) were successfully implanted. The helix was mostly affixed in the mid to basal lateral position (62%), followed by mid to basal posterior position (29%). The lead tip placement was most often mid lateral or mid posterior (77%), and in a vein with diameter greater than the pacing electrode diameter (>5.1 French) in the majority (60%) of procedures. Among all subjects (n=421) who underwent pacing capture thresholds (PCT) tests before and immediate after guide catheter slitting, 98% reported ≤1 V difference in PCT, and 86% were within 0.5 V. The interquartile range for the difference in PCT was −0.1 to 0.1 V. The mean PCT at implant for all subjects at the final selected LV pacing vector was 1.15±0.70 V at 0.5 ms pulse width. The average LV lead implant time was 16±21 minutes. Targeted pacing location was achieved in 97% of successful implants, and 98% of implanters reported good or fair stability after guidewire removal. The overall handling of the LV lead was rated as acceptable by implanters in 99% of cases. Three patients (0.7%) experienced LV lead dislodgement post implant, and these complications were resolved by repositioning of the lead (0 and 1-day post implant) in two and by lead replacement when noted at 90 days follow-up in one. Conclusions The ASQuad LV lead was implanted with a high rate of success and ability to achieve the targeted pacing location. Lead handling and stability following guidewire removal were rated as acceptable by nearly all implanters. The side-helix likely improved LV lead stability since 98% of the subjects had ≤1 V difference in PCT before and after catheter slitting during implant procedures, and by demonstrating a low post implant lead dislodgement rate. Acknowledgement/Funding Sponsored by Medtronic

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.162
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies→French-language works237,207→