Characteristics of Macroreentries Using an Epicardial Bypass: Pseudo-Focal Atrial Tachycardia Case Series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Human atria comprise distinct epicardial layers, which can bypass endocardial layers and lead to downstream centrifugal propagation at the “epi-endo” connection. We sought to characterize anatomical substrates, electrophysiological properties, and ablation outcomes of “pseudo-focal” atrial tachycardias (ATs), defined as macroreentrant ATs mimicking focal ATs. Methods and Results: We retrospectively analyzed ATs showing centrifugal propagation with post-pacing intervals (PPIs) after entrainment pacing suggestive of a macroreentry. A total of 26 patients had pseudo-focal ATs consisting of 15 perimitral, 7 roof-dependent, and 5 cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI)-dependent flutters. A low-voltage area was consistently found at the collision site and co-localized with epicardial layers like the: (1) coronary sinus-great cardiac vein bundle (22%); (2) vein of Marshall bundle (15%); (3) Bachmann bundle (22%); (4) septopulmonary bundle (15%); (5) fossa ovalis (7%); and (6) low right atrium (19%). The mean missing tachycardia cycle length (TCL) was 67 ± 29 ms (22%) on the endocardial activation map. PPI was 9 [0-15] ms and 10 [0-20] ms longer than TCL at the breakthrough site and the opposite site, respectively. While feasible in 25 pseudo-focal ATs (93%), termination was better achieved by blocking the anatomical isthmus than ablating the breakthrough site [24/26 (92%) vs. 1/6 (17%); p < 0.001]. Conclusion: Perimitral, roof-dependent, and CTI-dependent flutters with centrifugal propagation are favored by a low-voltage area located at well-identified epicardial bundles. Comprehensive entrainment pacing maneuvers are crucial to distinguish pseudo-focal ATs from true focal ATs. Blocking the anatomical isthmus is a better therapeutic option than ablating the breakthrough site.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".