MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388980282 · doi:10.1016/j.hroo.2023.11.015

Bipolar ablation involving coronary venous system for refractory left ventricular summit arrhythmias

2023· article· en· W4388980282 on OpenAlexaff
Andrés Enríquez, Matthew Hanson, Babak Nazer, Douglas Gibson, Óscar Cano, Sayuri Tokioka, Seiji Fukamizu, P Sanchez Millan, Carolina Hoyos, Carlos D. Matos, William H. Sauer, Usha B. Tedrow, Jorge Romero, Víctor Neira, Marian Futyma, Piotr Futyma

Bibliographic record

VenueHeart Rhythm O2 · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVentricular outflow tractCardiologyMedicineInternal medicineGreat cardiac veinAblationVentricular tachycardiaCatheter ablationCoronary sinus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Catheter ablation of premature ventricular complexes (PVCs) and ventricular tachycardia (VT) from the left ventricular summit (LVS) may require advanced ablation techniques. Bipolar ablation from the coronary veins and adjacent endocardial structures can be effective for refractory LVS arrhythmias. Objective The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes of bipolar ablation performed between the coronary venous system and adjacent endocardial left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) or right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT). Methods This multicenter study included consecutive patients with LVS PVC/VT who underwent bipolar ablation between the anterior interventricular vein (AIV) or great cardiac vein (GCV) and the endocardial LVOT/RVOT after failed unipolar ablation. Ablation was started with powers of 10–20 W and uptitrated to achieve an impedance drop of at least 10%. Angiography was performed in all cases to confirm a safe distance (>5 mm) of the catheter from the major coronary arteries. Results Between 2013 and 2023, bipolar radiofrequency ablation between the AIV/GCV and the adjacent LVOT/RVOT was attempted in 20 patients (4 female; age 57 ± 16 years). Unipolar ablation from sites of early activation (AIV/GCV, LVOT, aortic cusps, RVOT) failed to effectively suppress the PVC/VT in all subjects. Bipolar ablation was delivered with a maximum power of 30 ± 8 W and total duration of 238 ± 217 s and led to acute PVC/VT elimination in all patients. No procedural-related complications occurred. Over a follow-up period of 30 ± 24 months, the freedom from arrhythmia recurrence was 85% (1 recurrence in the VT group and 2 in the PVC group). PVC burden was reduced from 22% ± 10% to 4% ± 8% ( P <.001). Conclusion In cases of LVS PVC/VT refractory to unipolar ablation, bipolar ablation between the coronary venous system and adjacent endocardial LVOT/RVOT is safe and effective if careful titration of power and intraprocedural angiography are performed to ensure a safe distance from the coronary arteries.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations30
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeart Rhythm O2Same topicCardiac Arrhythmias and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207