Procedural outcomes of fluoroscopy-less catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Radiofrequency catheter ablation is superior therapy to antiarrhythmic drugs for maintaining sinus rhythm in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. Traditional fluoroscopy-guided AF ablation poses risks of prolonged radiation exposure for both patients and medical staff. Recent advancements in fluoroscopy-less catheter ablation techniques offer potential solutions, but comprehensive data on their effectiveness and safety are lacking. Purpose To evaluate the procedural outcomes and safety of fluoroscopy-less catheter ablation for AF compared to fluoroscopy-guided ablation. Methods Retrospective observational study of consecutive AF ablations (N=881) conducted at a university teaching hospital (Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, Ontario) from November 2017 to September 2022. An electro-anatomical mapping system and ICE was used in all cases. Baseline characteristics and procedural outcomes between the fluoroscopy-less and fluoroscopy-guided groups were compared. Cases that used <60 seconds of fluoroscopy (occasionally used by operators during the placement of an esophageal probe) were included in the fluoroscopy-less group (N= 68). Results Mean age of individuals was 60.6 ± 11 years, 71.7% were male, 72.6% had paroxysmal AF, mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 1.6 ± 1.4, 11.1% had prior heart failure, and mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 57.5 ± 15%. There were no significant differences in patient baseline characteristics between the fluoroscopy-less and fluoroscopy groups. Total procedure and fluoroscopy times were lower in the fluoroscopy-less group compared to the fluoroscopy-guided group (169.3 ±42 minutes vs. 192.1 ±54 minutes, p<0.0001 and 0.024 ±0.10 vs. 10.0 ±7.4 minutes , p<0.0001). Fluoroscopy-less AF ablation remained an independent predictor of lower procedure times following adjusting for the use of general anesthesia, high-power short-duration, presence of trainees, AF pattern, redo cases, and type of mapping system. Complication rates were similar between fluoroscopy-less and fluoroscopy-guided ablation (1.9% vs. 3.8%, p=0.11). Conclusion Fluoroscopy-less catheter ablation for AF appears to have similar procedural outcomes and safety than fluoroscopy-guided AF 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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".