ArticleJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2006
Diagnostic accuracy of cardiac markers for myocardial damage after radiofrequency catheter ablation.
Article in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluation of myocardial injury induced by different ablation approaches (radiofrequency ablation versus cryoablation) in atrial flutter patients: a meta-analysis.Bioscience reports · 2019Pooled it
- Myocardial injury during radiofrequency and cryoablation of typical atrial flutter.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2016Trial
- Comparison of Arctic Front Advance Pro and POLARx cryoballoons for ablation therapy of atrial fibrillation: an intraprocedural analysis.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2025Article
- The efficacy of radiofrequency ablation in the treatment of pediatric arrhythmia and its effects on serum IL-6 and hs-CRP.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2017Article
- Remote magnetic versus manual catheters: evaluation of ablation effect in atrial fibrillation by myocardial marker levels.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThis study compares serum markers of myocardial damage incurred during radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA). METHODS AND
resultsBlood was sampled from 34 patients with atrial flutter (n = 16), atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT; n = 13), and Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome (WPW; n = 5) to measure creatine kinase MB subfraction (CK-MB), human heart-type fatty acid protein (h-FABP), and cardiac troponin T (cTnT) values at baseline and after RFCA. The controls comprised 12 patients without significant elevation of all myocardial markers during electrophysiological study (EPS) without RFCA. h-FABP values did not elevate significantly, whereas CK-MB and cTnT demonstrated significant change after RFCA (P < 0.001). Neither peak h-FABP nor CK-MB correlated with following RFCA parameters: delivery duration, number of RFCA discharges, and cumulative RFCA energy. In contrast, correlations were significant between mean peak values of cTnT and these RFCA parameters (all P < 0.05). The sensitivity (71.6%) and specificity (35.6%) of h-FABP were inferior to those of cTnT (93.3% and 89.8%, respectively).
conclusionh-FABP is an insensitive and less specific marker of myocardial damage in RFCA much along the lines of CK-MB and when compared with the proven accuracy of cTnT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17103317What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.