1,720,995 research outputs found

    Use of a novel sharp-tip, J-shaped guidewire to facilitate transseptal catheterization

    No full text
    Aims: Transseptal catheterization (TSP-C) is a demanding procedure and at the same time one of the key points of atrial fibrillation ablation, an increasingly diffused procedure. This study prospectively evaluates the usefulness of a novel sharp-tip, J-shaped 0.014′′ transseptal guidewire (TSP-GW) to facilitate TSP-C in case of resistant atrial septum (AS). Methods and results: Consecutive patients undergoing TSP-C for arrhythmia ablation in a single centre were considered for the study. TSP-C was performed according to a standardized technique. The criterion to use the TSP-GW was a resistant AS, defined as inability to perforate the fossa ovalis by applying moderate pressure to a standard Brockenbrough needle. The TSP-GW was inserted in the needle lumen and advanced to puncture the AS and enter the left atrium; subsequently, the transseptal assembly was advanced over the TSP-GW. Double transseptal puncture was routinely performed for ablation of atrial fibrillation. Eighty-one patients (54 males, 27 females; mean age 54 ± 17 years, range 12-81) undergoing TSP-C were enrolled; 132 TSP-C procedures were planned and accomplished. Nineteen patients (23) in 27 procedures showed a resistant AS. In all these procedures, the TSP-GW was safely and successfully used to accomplish the TSP-C. In patients with a resistant AS, only a significantly lower prevalence of structural heart disease was observed when compared with controls. No complication related to TSP-C was observed. Conclusion: The TSP-GW facilitates TSP-C in 23 of the patients, in whom a resistant AS is encountered. In this population, there was no clinical predictor of such anatomy. © The Author 2010

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Full text link
    The present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
    corecore