MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3105959506 · doi:10.1016/j.cjco.2020.11.002

Outcomes and Safety of Fluoroless Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation

2020· article· en· W3105959506 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueCJC Open · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesHealth Sciences CentrePopulation Health Research InstituteMcMaster University
FundersMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health Sciences
KeywordsFluoroscopyMedicineInterquartile rangeAtrial fibrillationAblationCatheter ablationCatheterComplicationCardiologyNuclear medicineInternal medicineRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BackgroundIntracardiac echocardiography and 3D mapping systems allow catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) to be conducted without fluoroscopy; however, the safety and effectiveness of fluoroless AF ablation are not well defined.MethodsWe examined consecutive radiofrequency AF catheter ablations at a large academic teaching hospital from November 2017 to July 2019. Outcomes for fluoroscopy-guided (N = 176) and fluoroless (N = 147) ablations were compared. Cases were designated as fluoroless at the outset of the procedure.ResultsMean age was 59.5 ± 10 years, 66.9% were male, 71.8% had paroxysmal AF, and the mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 1.7 ± 1.4. There were no differences in patient baseline characteristics. In the fluoroless group, minimal fluoroscopy was used in 17 patients (median, 3 seconds; interquartile range, 1.2-4.8). Mean procedure time, fluoroscopy time, and radiation dose (± standard deviation) were greater in the fluoroscopy group compared with the fluoroless group (194 ± 56 vs 176 ± 46 minutes, P = 0.0021; 10.7 ± 6.6 vs 0.008 ± 0.03 minutes, P < 0.0001; 2759.2 ± 1911 vs 5.4 ± 24 μGy m2, P < 0.0001). In multivariable linear regression models, fluoroless AF ablation was independently associated with reduced procedure times (ß = −16.5 minutes, P = 0.01). Acute procedural success (95.5% vs 98.6%, P = 0.1), complication rates (4.5% vs 2.0%, P = 0.24), and 1-year AF recurrence rates (28.7% vs 27.1%, log-rank P = 0.69) were similar between fluoroscopy and fluoroless groups. Excluding the 17 patients receiving fluoroscopy in the fluoroless group did not impact our results (P = 0.013). After exclusion of redo cases, fluoroless AF ablation was no longer associated with reduced procedure times (ß = −11.4 minutes, P = 0.106).ConclusionsFluoroless radiofrequency AF ablation had similar effectiveness and safety compared with conventional fluoroscopy-guided AF 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.241

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.280 · 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