Outcomes and Safety of Fluoroless Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Intracardiac 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. Methods We 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. Results Mean age was 59.5 ± 10 years, 66.9% were male, 71.8% had paroxysmal AF, and the mean CHA 2 DS 2 -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 m 2 , 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). Conclusions Fluoroless 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.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".