HIGH POWER SHORT DURATION VS LOW POWER LONG DURATION CATHETER ABLATION OF ATRIAL FIBRILLATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Backgrounds : Atrial Fibrillation (AF) is a known common arrythmia, affecting around 33 million people worldwide. Catheter ablation is a safe and effective treatment for paroxysmal and persistent AF that are unresponsive to drug treatment. However, long procedural duration of AF ablation has raised the concern of radiation hazard and post-procedural complications. The high power short duration (HPSD) technique is an emerging method that has been introduced as an alternative to reduce procedural time of AF ablation. Objective: This study attempts to review the safety and efficacy of HSPD compared to the conventional low power long duration (LPLD) ablation in AF patients. Method : A search through PubMed, Science Direct, JSTORE, and clinicaltrial.gov was conducted. The keywords used were (catheter ablation OR radiofrequency OR pulmonary vein isolation) AND (atrial fibrillation) AND (high power short duration OR 50 W). The search was limited from 2006 to 2024. Risk of bias assessment was conducted through Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) assessment. Results: Among 55,802 journals reviewed, we retrieved 10 journals that met the inclusion criteria. This study found that HPSD ablation results in either better or comparable efficacy in maintaining long term sinus rhythm post ablation. Additionally, there was no difference in safety for both HPSD and LPLD. We also recommend using esophageal temperature monitoring probe and adjusting energy delivery during posterior wall ablation to avoid injuring esophagus. Conclusion: Our study concluded that HPSD ablation is a safe choice of treatment for drug-refractory paroxysmal or persistent AF with a noteworthy outcome compared to LPLD 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 | 0.006 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".