High-power short-duration radiofrequency ablation of typical atrial flutter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background High-power short-duration (HPSD) ablation has been explored for pulmonary vein isolation. Early data suggest similar efficacy with shorter procedure times and perhaps greater safety. Data are lacking on the use of this ablation strategy for other arrhythmias. Objective The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and clinical outcomes of HPSD ablation in patients with typical atrial flutter compared to those undergoing ablation with conventional settings. Methods Consecutive patients undergoing cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) ablation using standard power settings were compared to those performed after transitioning to HPSD ablation. Demographics, procedural details, and ablation outcomes were prospectively collected. The primary endpoint was duration of radiofrequency energy delivery. Secondary endpoints were radiation duration and analgesia requirements. Results A total of 114 consecutive subjects undergoing CTI ablation (57 standard power, 57 HPSD) were included. HPSD ablation and electroanatomic mapping/contact force (EAM/CF) use were associated with 66% (95% confidence interval [CI] 58%–73%) and 50% (95% CI 37%–60%) shorter ablation times compared to standard power and not using EAM/CF, respectively. Patients in the HPSD group required 50 mcg less fentanyl relative to the standard ablation arm after adjusting for sex, age, and comorbidities ( P = .048). At a median follow-up of 6 months, 4 patients (7%) in the standard arm had recurrence of atrial flutter, compared to none in HPSD group ( P = .057). Conclusion HPSD is a safe and effective approach to CTI ablation. This strategy may reduce ablation time and analgesia requirements. Larger studies and longer follow-up are needed to further evaluate this strategy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".