ArticleJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2014
Remote magnetic navigation for circumferential pulmonary vein ablation: single-catheter technique or additional use of a circular mapping catheter?
Article in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- High-power short-duration ablation index-guided pulmonary vein isolation protocol using a single catheter.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2022Article
- Significant reduction in procedure duration in remote magnetic-guided catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation using the third-generation magnetic navigation system.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2017Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeRemote magnetic navigation (RMN) is utilized for catheter guidance during pulmonary vein ablation (PVA). We aimed to determine whether the additional use of a circular mapping catheter (CMC) influences efficacy and outcome of RMN-guided PVA.
methodsA total of 80 consecutive subjects (65 % male, age 62 ± 9 years) underwent circumferential PVA with a 3D mapping system and an RMN-guided irrigated catheter. Procedural endpoint was complete PV isolation (PVI), total radiofrequency (RF) time >60 min, or procedure duration >5 h. PVI was defined as an entrance and/or exit block, diagnosed with a CMC within the PV ostium or by pacing via the roving RMN-guided catheter (single-catheter technique). Prolonged Holter monitoring after 3 and 6 months was used to detect atrial tachyarrhythmia (AT/AF) recurrences.
resultsComplete PVI was achieved in 56 % (45/80) of all subjects (isolated PVs per patient, 3.1 ± 1.2; RF time, 56.3 ± 17.2 min; procedure duration, 3.8 ± 0.8 h). Prospective validation of the single-catheter technique for diagnosing PVI demonstrated high concordance (94 %) with blinded CMC results. CMC use in first-time PVA was associated with similar total RF and procedure times but higher PV isolation rate. Upon multivariate analysis, CMC use, female gender, left PV, smaller PV ostium and repeat PVA predicted PVI during RMN-guided ablation. Persistent AF and mitral regurgitation at baseline and the number of non-isolated PVs predicted AT/AF recurrence during follow-up.
conclusionsConcomitant CMC use for first-time, RMN-guided PVA is associated with similar procedure duration but higher PV isolation rates as compared to a single-catheter approach. Since the number of isolated PVs predicts freedom from AT/AF, CMC utilization appears advisable for first-time, RMN-guided PVA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.