MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387035378 · doi:10.1016/j.cjco.2023.09.013

Half-Normal Saline vs Normal Saline for Cavotricuspid Isthmus-Dependent Atrial Flutter Ablation

2023· article· en· W4387035378 on OpenAlexaff
Ana de León, Matthew Hanson, Nasser Alhammad, David Bakker, Sanoj Chacko, Christopher S. Simpson, Hoshiar Abdollah, Adrián Baranchuk, Damian Redfearn, Benedict M. Glover, Andrés Enríquez, Víctor Neira

Bibliographic record

VenueCJC Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalineAblationMedicineAtrial flutterCatheter ablationCardiologyAtrial fibrillationSignificant differenceInternal medicineCatheterSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BackgroundCavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) ablation requires permanent bidirectional block to prevent recurrence of typical atrial flutter (AFL). Catheter irrigation with half-normal saline (HNS) produces larger and deeper lesions in experimental models when compared to normal saline (NS). This study was performed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of HNS versus NS irrigation for typical AFL ablation.MethodsSixty-patients undergoing catheter ablation of typical AFL were randomized 1:1 to NS or HNS irrigation. Endpoints included time to CTI block, acute reconnection, incidence of steam pops and AFL recurrence during follow-up.ResultsBaseline characteristics were comparable between both arms. The mean age of the patients was 68.5±8.2 years, 20% were female and 32% had atrial fibrillation prior to being enrolled. Bidirectional CTI block was obtained in all patients with no difference in time to CTI block between groups (6.4±4.4 minutes versus 7.6±4.5 minutes respectively, p=0.15). There was a trend to less acute reconnection in the HNS group compared to NS (13.3% versus 26.6%, p=0.46). Steam pops occurred in 4 patients using HNS versus none in the NS group, but no major complications were observed. During the follow-up, rate of AFL recurrence was similar between groups (6.7% with HNS vs 10% with NS, p=0.5). There was no difference in time to recurrence (7.6±6.9 vs. 4.9±4.5 months, p=0.6).ConclusionIn this small pilot RCT, there was no significant difference between HNS and NS for CTI ablation, however, HNS may increase the incidence of steam pops.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.252
Threshold uncertainty score0.930

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCJC OpenSame topicCardiac Arrhythmias and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207