Is higher power shorter duration radiofrequency energy is better than lower power longer duration strategy in catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation A meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background An ideal strategy for radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of atrial fibrillation (AF) in the left atrium should be efficient enough to achieve transmural lesions in left atrium with no or minimal collateral tissue damage. Resistive heating of high power short duration (HPSD) RFA has been found to result in lesions larger in width but lesser in depth compared to lower power longer duration (LPLD) RFA in some experimental studies. Purpose This meta-analysis was performed to compare procedural, short-term and long-term outcomes of HPSD versus LPLD RFA of AF. Methods PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases were systematically reviewed. Five observational studies meeting criteria were included in the meta-analysis. All the studies scored six or more points in the New-castle Ottawa scale. There were considerable variations in the ablation strategies across the studies. However, radiofrequency power more than 40W was considered as high power. Hypergeometric model with exact likelihood function was utilized for statistical analysis. Results Baseline parameters and ablation details have been depicted in Table 1. 740 patients with HPSD and 287 patients with LPLD ablation strategies, were followed up from 6 to 30 months. Total procedural time (P value <0.0001) and ablation time (P value <0.0001) were significantly lower in the HPSD group than LPLD group. However, the fluoroscopy time was similar (P value = 0.09) in both the groups (Table 2). There were no occurrences of atrio-esophageal fistula or pulmonary venous stenosis in any of the studies. Cardiac tamponade (P value = 0.56), stroke (P value = 0.70) and AF recurrences (P value = 0.81), were similar in both groups (Table 2). Conclusion Newer HPSD and conventional LPLD RFA, both the strategies are very safe procedure for treatment of RFA with low to no procedural complications. AF recurrence rates were reasonably high irrespective of ablation strategies, however, no strategy scored statistically better over the other one. Large randomized multi-centric studies with long-term follow up are needed to test the theoretical advantage of HPSD ablation over the traditional ablation strategy of AF. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.046 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".