MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 14123: AF Ablation Using a Novel “Single-Shot” Map-and-Ablate Spherical Array Pulsed Field Ablation Catheter: Impact of Application Repetition on PV Isolation Durability in the <i>PULSE-EU Study</i>

2022· article· en· W4380794896 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vivek Y. Reddy, Mohit K. Turagam, Jan Petrů, Jacob S. Koruth, Moritoshi Funasako, Pavel Hála, J. Škoda, Milan Chovanec, Lucie Šedivá, Petr Neužil

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAblationCatheterPulmonary veinCatheter ablationLesionPericardial effusionNuclear medicineSurgeryCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Preclinical studies have revealed that pulse field ablation (PFA) lesion dimension increases with consecutive applications at a similar electric field. Whether durability of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is predicated on repetitive PFA applications is unknown. In the first-in-human PULSE-EU clinical trial (NCT05164107), the ability of this map-and-ablate PFA catheter to achieve durable PVI was assessed, both with single vs repetitive PFA applications. Methods: Under general anesthesia, paroxysmal AF pts underwent PVI using the spherical array PFA catheter (Globe; Kardium Inc, Canada) delivered with a deflectable 19Fr transeptal sheath and ICE-guidance. Using a custom mapping system, the PFA catheter rendered contact and voltage anatomic maps ( Figure ). The spherical array is positioned at the PV ostium and PFA is performed (1.6-2 kV/lesion, ungated 3s pulses). Follow-up was post-procedure EGD and brain MRI within 1 day, and invasive remapping at ⁓2 months. Results: A total of 21 pts (age 63±11 years; M/F 33%/67%) underwent PVI in 2 groups: Gp1-single PF application/PV, and Gp2-3 PF applications/PV. In Gp1 (n=11 pts) and Gp2 (n=10 pts), PVI was acutely successful in 100% of PVs in both groups. Pulse delivery times and total procedure times were 75.2±7.4 sec/pt vs 24.5±5.5 sec/pt and 73.2±13.7 mins​ vs 93.7±18.5 mins​ in Gp2 vs Gp1. There was no stroke/TIA, pericardial effusion, phrenic nerve injury, or esophageal complications. EGD was normal in all 9/9 pts. Brain MRI showed silent cerebral lesions (DWI+/FLAIR-) in 3/16 (18.8%) pts. PV remapping revealed durable PVI in 25/40 (62.5%) PVs in 10 pts in Gp1, compared with all 34/34 (100%) PVs in 9 pts in Gp2; this translates to all PVs being durably isolated in 27% vs 100% (p<0.05) of pts in Gp1 and Gp2. Conclusion: The “single-shot” map-and-ablate spherical array PFA catheter can safely isolate PVs. Repetitive PFA applications is key for lesion consolidation to improve PVI durability.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments→French-language works237,207→