Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Catheter ablation is superior to antiarrhythmic drugs in maintaining sinus rhythm for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Pulmonary vein (PV) isolation is the cornerstone of any AF ablation procedure. Conventionally, this is achieved by performing point by point lesions using radiofrequency (RF) energy. However, this is technically challenging, time consuming and is associated with a number of complications. Long-term durability of PV isolation is also a concern. To address these issues, 'one-shot' energy delivery systems and alternative energy sources have been developed. The cryoballoon system has emerged as the most commonly used alternative to point by point RF technology. In this paper, we compare the technology, biophysics and clinical data of cryoballoon to conventional RF ablation for AF. The safety and efficacy of cryoballoon compared to RF ablation is critically reviewed. We conclude by looking at future applications of this technology.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11886-015-0631-7 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!