MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Left Ventricular Entry to Reduce Brain Lesions During Catheter Ablation: A Randomized Trial

2025· article· en· W4407884112 on OpenAlexaff
Gregory M. Marcus, Roderick Tung, Edward P. Gerstenfeld, Trisha F. Hue, Feng Lin, Jing Cheng, J. Peter Weiss, Wendy S. Tzou, Henry H. Hsia, Ashkan Ehdaie, Daniel H. Cooper, T. Jared Bunch, Jeffrey Arkles, Babak Nazer, Adam Lee, Alexios Hadjis, Duy T. Nguyen, Mihail G. Chelu, Joshua D. Moss, Jonathan C. Hsu, Miguel Valderrábano, Prashant D. Bhave, Andrew D. Beaser, Arvindh N. Kanagasundram, Oussama M. Wazni, Jason S. Bradfield, Grace Wall, Kathleen Chang, Michelle Yang, Sabrina Jarrott, Joel H. Kramer, Anthony Kim, Yonca Morris, W.P. Dillon

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstitutePatient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
KeywordsMedicineMagnetic resonance imagingAblationCardiologyCatheter ablationCatheterRandomized controlled trialRadiologyInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation of ventricular arrhythmias, one of the most rapidly growing procedures in cardiac electrophysiology, is associated with magnetic resonance imaging-detected brain lesions in more than half of cases. Although a retrograde aortic approach is conventional, modern tools enable entry through a transseptal approach that may avoid embolization of debris from the arterial system. We sought to test the hypothesis that a transseptal puncture would mitigate brain injury compared with a retrograde aortic approach. METHODS: The TRAVERSE trial (Transseptal Versus Retrograde Aortic Ventricular Entry to Reduce Systemic Emboli) was a multicenter randomized controlled comparative effectiveness trial. Patients with left ventricular arrhythmias undergoing catheter ablation procedures were randomly assigned to a transseptal puncture approach compared (1:1) with a retrograde aortic approach. The primary outcome was the presence of an acute brain lesion detected by magnetic resonance imaging. Secondary outcomes included clinically manifest complications, procedural efficacy, and 6-month neurocognitive assessments. RESULTS: =0.036). No differences in clinically manifest complications or procedural efficacy were observed. More patients in the retrograde aortic arm were categorized as having a high likelihood of cognitive impairment at 6 months (33% compared with 19% of those in the transseptal arm), but substantial loss to follow-up was present. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing left ventricular catheter ablation procedures, a transseptal approach reduced the risk of acute brain lesions by nearly half compared with a retrograde aortic approach without sacrificing safety or efficacy. Given a likely embolic pathogenesis, the brain magnetic resonance imaging findings may reflect a propensity to other organ damage; these findings may extend to other procedures requiring left ventricular entry. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03946072.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.328
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations14
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicAtrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→