{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019417475728155338, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008215085884988798, 'mean_word_length': 6.444444444444445, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 3, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Hemodynamic Management of Patients with Ejection Fraction < 50% Undergoing Pulmonary Vein Ablation.

There is no consensus regarding optimal methodology forblood pressure monitoring inpatients with a depressed ejection fraction undergoingcatheter ablationfor atrial fibrillation. Our goalswere to determine ifhemodynamicmanagementdifferences exist during radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with and without an ejection fraction< 50%, and whether management was influenced by the utilization of invasive arterial blood pressure monitoring. This single-center trial retrospectively compared blood pressure management during catheterablation of atrial fibrillationin all patients with an ejection fraction< 50% over a 2-year span (n=44), and compared to an age-matched cohort with preserved ejection fraction ablated over the same span in time (n=44). Blood pressure was not significantly managed differently between the groups, and did not appear to be influenced by the use of invasive arterial blood pressure monitoring.Hemodynamic management is similar across the spectrum of ejection fraction, regardless of invasive arterial blood pressure monitoring, which challenges the need for invasive arterial blood pressure monitoringduringcatheter ablation ofatrial fibrillationin left ventricular systolic dysfunction.