MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3035828283 · doi:10.1093/europace/euaa162.092

P1409Effectiveness of atrial fibrillation ablation using a contact force stability module with contact force or non-contact force catheter

2020· article· en· W3035828283 on OpenAlexaffabout
Yaariv Khaykin, Pouria Alipour, Zahra Azizi, Alona Avoulov, Carl Jansen, Sarah Donegan, Stacey Morris, Sunil Nath, Sara Tamjidi, N Varah, Alfredo Pantano, Atul Verma, Bruce Weaver, Tina D. Hunter

Bibliographic record

VenueEP Europace · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSouthlake Regional Health Center
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAtrial fibrillationCatheter ablationAtrial flutterCatheterAtrial tachycardiaAblationContact forceTachycardiaCardiologyCardiac AblationInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements This study was funded by Biosense Webster, Inc. Background Catheter ablation is a mainstream treatment option for atrial fibrillation (AF). Recently, contact force (CF) enabled ablation catheters and a stability module were developed to allow for real-time CF sensing and improvement of catheter-tissue stability, which is important for achieving an optimal clinical outcome. We assessed the relative effectiveness of these new technologies, as well as the optimal CF stability parameters, in a real-world setting. Purpose To compare the clinical effectiveness of AF ablations performed with a CF catheter using location stability settings of 2.5 mm maximum distance for 12 s minimum (2.5/12) vs. a non-CF catheter with settings of 3 mm for 7 s (3/7). Methods Within 1/14–4/18, 176 de novo AF ablations using either a CF catheter with stability settings of 2.5/12 (n = 92, 5/16–4/18) or a non-CF catheter with stability settings of 3/7 (n = 84, 1/14–3/14) were performed by a single operator at a Canadian medical center. Patients routinely wore 48 hour Holter monitors every three months through the first year. The primary measures of effectiveness were Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival estimates of freedom from AF/atrial tachycardia (AT)/atrial flutter (AFL) recurrence after a 3-month blanking period and reablation. Results The CF group was 62.9 ± 10.0 years old, 57.6% male, and 66.3% paroxysmal (PAF). The non-CF group was 61.6 ± 9.9 years old, 63.1% male, and 76.2% PAF. Procedural complications consisted of a single vascular access complication in the non-CF group. The 12-month estimate of freedom from AF/AT/AFL recurrence was 79.4% in the CF group vs. 64.8% in the non-CF group (p = 0.058 for difference in survival over time). 12-month freedom from reablation was 90.4% in the CF group vs. 70.5% in the non-CF group (p = 0.002). Conclusion CF ablation with more stringent stability settings of 2.5/12 was more effective than non-CF ablation with stability settings of 3/7, likely attributable to the CF catheter enabling visualization of catheter-tissue contact and the stability module facilitating maintenance of CF stability during ablation. Abstract Figure.

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)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEP EuropaceSame topicCardiac Arrhythmias and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207