Randomized trial of conventional versus radiofrequency needle transseptal puncture for cryoballoon ablation: the CRYO-LATS trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transseptal puncture to achieve left atrial access is necessary for many cardiac procedures, including atrial fibrillation ablation. More recently, there has been an increasing need for left atrial access using large caliber sheaths, which increases risk of perforation associated with the initial advancement into the left atrium. We compared the effectiveness of a radiofrequency needle-based transseptal system versus conventional needle for transseptal access. METHODS: This prospective controlled trial randomized 161 patients with symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation undergoing cryoballoon pulmonary vein isolation to transseptal access with a commercially available transseptal system (radiofrequency needle plus stiff pigtail wire; RF + Pigtail group) versus conventional transseptal access (standard group). The primary outcome was time required for left atrial access. Secondary outcomes included failure of the assigned transseptal system, radiation exposure, and complications. RESULTS: The median transseptal puncture time was significantly shorter using the radiofrequency needle plus stiff pigtail wire transseptal system compared with conventional transseptal (840 ± 323 vs. 956 ± 407 s, P = 0.0489). Compared to conventional transseptal puncture, fewer transseptal attempts were required (1.0 ± 0.5 RF applications vs. 1.3 ± 0.8 mechanical punctures, P = 0.0123) and the fluoroscopy time was significantly shorter (72.0 [IQR 48.0, 129.0] vs. 93.0 [IQR 60.0, 171.0] s, P = 0.0490) with the radiofrequency needle plus stiff pigtail wire transseptal system. Failure to achieve transseptal LA access with the assigned system was rarely observed (1.3% vs. 5.7%, P = 0.2192). There were no procedural complications observed with either system. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a radiofrequency needle plus stiff pigtail wire resulted in shorter time to left atrial access and reduced fluoroscopy time compared to left atrial access using conventional transseptal equipment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03199703.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".