A simple maneuver to determine if septal accessory pathway ablation requires a left atrial approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Septal accessory pathway (AP) ablation can be challenging due to the complex anatomy of the septal region. The decision to access the left atrium (LA) is often made after failure of ablation from the right. We sought to establish whether the difference between ventriculo‐atrial (VA) time during right ventricular (RV) apical pacing versus the VA during tachycardia would help establish the successful site for ablation of septal APs. Methods Intracardiac electrograms of patients with orthodromic reciprocating tachycardia (ORT) using a septal AP with successful catheter ablation were reviewed. The ∆VA was the difference between the VA interval during RV apical pacing and the VA interval during ORT. The difference in the VA interval during right ventricular entrainment and ORT (StimA–VA) was also measured. Results The median ∆VA time was significantly less in patients with a septal AP ablated on the right side compared with patients with a septal AP ablated on the left side (12 ± 19 vs. 56 ± 10 ms, p < .001). The StimA–VA was significantly different between the two groups (22 ± 14 vs. 53 ± 9 ms, p < .001). The ∆VA and StimA–VA were always 40 ms in patients with non‐decremental septal APs ablated from the right side and always greater than 40 ms in those with septal APs ablated from the left. Conclusion ΔVA and StimA–VA values identified with RV apical pacing in the setting of ORT involving a septal AP predict when left atrial access will be necessary for successful 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".