Impact of overweight and obesity on radiation dose and outcome in patients undergoing pulmonary vein isolation by cryoballoon and pulsed field ablation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) using pulsed field ablation (PFA) or cryoballoon ablation (CBA) are commonly used single-shot techniques for the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The number of overweight (BMI 25–30 kg/m 2 ) and obese (BMI>30 kg/m 2 ) patients undergoing PVI is increasing, but data on this patient population is limited. Consecutive AF patients with a BMI ≥25 kg/m 2 undergoing PFA- or CBA-PVI were included in this retrospective analysis. Baseline characteristics, procedural parameters and 1-year AF-freedom were retrospectively analyzed and compared for both ablation modalities. Of 115 patients (66 % men, 64 years [IQR: 58–71 years], 57 % overweight and 43 % obese) PFA- was performed in 68 % and CBA-PVI in 32 %. Contrast-dye volume (PFA: 80 ml [IQR: 60 − 117 ml] vs. CBA: 130 ml [IQR: 95 − 200 ml], P =0.001) and radiation exposure (PFA: 2196 cGy·cm 2 [IQR: 1398 − 2973 cGy·cm 2 ] vs. CBA: 3239 cGy·cm 2 [IQR: 1288 − 5062 cGy·cm 2 ], P =0.009) was lower in patients undergoing PFA-PVI. Logistic regression analysis identified obesity (OR: 5.58, 95 % CI: 1.63–19.06; P =0.006) and CBA-PVI (OR: 12.93, 95 % CI: 3.51–47.68; P < 0.001) to be associated with increased radiation exposure. Both techniques were comparably safe (PFA: 4 % vs. CBA: 0 %; P =0.3). The median follow-up time was 145 days [IQR: 103 − 294 days]. AF-freedom after 1-year was similar in overweight (82 %) and obese patients (67 %) (HR: 0.61; 95 % CI: 0.29–1.28; P =0.19) as well as in PFA- and CBA-PVI patients (76 % vs. 76 %, HR: 1.37; 95 % CI: 0.63–2.99; P =0.42). Overweight and obese patients undergoing PFA-PVI had lower contrast-dye volume compared to CBA-PVI. Obesity was associated with increased radiation exposure. Both techniques were comparably safe. The 1-year AF-freedom was similar in overweight and obese patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".