Transseptal puncture during catheter ablation associated with higher radiation exposure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Electroanatomic mapping systems are increasingly used during ablations to decrease the need for fluoroscopy and therefore radiation exposure. For left-sided arrhythmias, transseptal puncture is a common procedure performed to gain access to the left side of the heart. We aimed to demonstrate the radiation exposure associated with transseptal puncture. METHODS: Data were retrospectively collected from the Catheter Ablation with Reduction or Elimination of Fluoroscopy registry. Patients with left-sided accessory pathway-mediated tachycardia, with a structurally normal heart, who had a transseptal puncture, and were under 22 years of age were included. Those with previous ablations, concurrent diagnostic or interventional catheterisation, and missing data for fluoroscopy use or procedural outcomes were excluded. Patients with a patent foramen ovale who did not have a transseptal puncture were selected as the control group using the same criteria. Procedural outcomes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: There were 284 patients in the transseptal puncture group and 70 in the patent foramen ovale group. The transseptal puncture group had a significantly higher mean procedure time (158.8 versus 131.4 minutes, p = 0.002), rate of fluoroscopy use (38% versus 7%, p < 0.001), and mean fluoroscopy time (2.4 versus 0.6 minutes, p < 0.001). The acute success and complication rates were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Performing transseptal puncture remains a common reason to utilise fluoroscopy in the era of non-fluoroscopic ablation. Better tools are needed to make non-fluoroscopic transseptal puncture more feasible.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".