Multipurpose Radiofrequency Wire System Improves Procedural Workflow Compared With Mechanical Needle for Left Atrial Appendage Closure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is a rapidly emerging therapy for atrial fibrillation patients not suitable for anticoagulation. The study compared procedural time and adverse events between mechanical Brockenbrough needle and the VersaCross radiofrequency system for WATCHMAN implantation. All patients undergoing LAAC at Vancouver General Hospital were prospectively enrolled. Procedural workflow, times, and complications were compared in 20 patients: 10 using VersaCross radiofrequency system and 10 using Brockenbrough needle. Transseptal puncture success was 100%. The radiofrequency wire reduced total procedural time by 27% (21.5 vs 29.5 minutes; P=.008) and fluoroscopy and contrast use without increasing complications. One ischemic stroke occurred during 360-day follow-up unrelated to the device. The multipurpose radiofrequency system streamlines LAAC workflow and is a safe, efficient alternative to mechanical puncture. Larger randomized trials are warranted to confirm these benefits.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".