Achieving bi‐directional conduction block during catheter ablation is not enough to prevent recurrence of cavo‐tricuspid isthmus dependant atrial flutter: Role of subclinical conduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Achieving bi-directional conduction block, as assessed by differential pacing and change in activation along tricuspid annulus (TA), across the cavo-tricuspid isthmus (CTI), is considered a satisfactory end point during catheter ablation of atrial flutter (AFL). AIM: To assess role of subclinical conduction by observing polarity reversal of local bipolar signals from RS to QR pattern lateral to the line of ablation, in predicting recurrence of CTI dependant AFL after ablation in patients with bidirectional conduction block. METHOD AND RESULTS: Of 683 patients undergoing ablation of CTI dependent AFL, 73 (10.6%) patients underwent redo flutter ablation and were evaluated further. The mean age was 60.8 years and 51% were males. Evidence of bidirectional block by differential pacing and change is activation along multipolar catheter and reversal of local bipolar signals from RS to QR pattern lateral to the line of ablation, during the 1st and subsequent procedure, were studied. 60% patients had confirmed bidirectional block of which 71% had lack of voltage reversal, at the end of 1st procedure. All patients with bidirectional block with lack of reversal of bipolar signals, after the first procedure had recurrence of AFL whereas only 3/11 (27%) people with bidirectional block and with absence of subclinical conduction had recurrence of AFL. CONCLUSION: Achieving bidirectional conduction block is not sufficient to prevent recurrence of AFL after CTI ablation. Reversal of local bipolar signals, from RS to QR pattern along with achieving bidirectional conduction delay would reduce recurrence of AFL, post 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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".