Trial reportJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2016
Trends in percutaneous pericardial access during catheter ablation of ventricular arrhythmias: a single-center experience.
Trial report in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Epicardial thoracoscopic robotic-assisted catheter navigation in a pig.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2019Article
- Feasibility and safety of percutaneous epicardial access for mapping and ablation for ventricular arrhythmias in patients on oral anticoagulants.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2019Article
- A Novel Defibrillation Tool: Percutaneously Delivered, Partially Insulated Epicardial Defibrillation.JACC. Clinical electrophysiology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePercutaneous pericardial access (EpiAcc) assists ventricular tachycardia/premature ventricular complex (VT/PVC) ablation by permitting epicardial mapping and ablation outside the vicinity of the coronary venous system. We sought to determine whether expanding indications and growing operator experience have led to increased rates of EpiAcc.
methodsWe reviewed the frequency of EpiAcc procedures performed during VT/PVC ablation between 2007 and 2014 to identify temporal trends in the procedure.
resultsThere were 758 patients undergoing 880 VT/PVC ablation procedures (average 95 patients per year; 110 procedures per year) during the study period. EpiAcc for ablation was utilized in 170 patients (181 procedures). The average age at the time of EpiAcc was 55 ± 16 years and 129 (76.0 %) patients were male. The rate of EpiAcc was 22.9 % in males and 15.4 % in females (P = 0.008). The absolute number of EpiAcc procedures increased from 2007 (6 procedures) to 2014 (27 procedures). Similarly, the proportion of patients undergoing EpiAcc increased from 8.6 % of procedures in 2007 to 24.5 % in 2014 (P < 0.0001). While EpiAcc use became more frequent, the rate of epicardial ablation among those who underwent EpiAcc remained stable (approximately 70 %).
conclusionsPercutaneous pericardial access has been used with increasing frequency as part of VT/PVC ablations without an increase in the rate of epicardial ablation. This growing utilization may lay the foundation for novel epicardial strategies as new technologies emerge. The frequency of percutaneous pericardial access in VT/PVC ablation appears to be greater in males, reasons for which are undefined.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27193315What 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.