P1409Effectiveness of atrial fibrillation ablation using a contact force stability module with contact force or non-contact force catheter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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".