ArticleJournal of atrial fibrillation2015
Safety and Feasibility of Contrast Injection During Pulmonary Vein Isolation with the nMARQ™ Multi-Electrode Catheter.
Article in Journal of atrial fibrillation, 2015. 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.
- Contributions of Israel to the field of clinical cardiac electrophysiology and implantable devices.Heart rhythm O2 · 2024Article
- Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence and Peri-Procedural Complication Rates in nMARQ vs. Conventional Ablation Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in physiology · 2018Article
- Comparison of the Efficacy of PVACJournal of atrial fibrillationReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPulmonary vein isolation (PVI) using the irrigated multi-electrode ablation system (nMARQ™) remains challenging in complex atrial anatomy cases and when CARTOMERGE™ technology is not available, due to absence of a leading guide-wire.
objectivesOur objective was to assess feasibility and safety of PVI using nMARQ™ catheter with intra-procedural contrast injections through the deflectable sheath compared to nMARQ™ alone.
methodsThis is a prospective non-randomized observational study of 78 consecutive patients who underwent PVI only with nMARQ™. The first group (n=37, 64±10.5 years, 62% male, 13.5% persistent AF) underwent the procedure with the guidance of signal mapping, fluoroscopy, and electro-anatomical mapping (EAM) alone. Since 12/2013 an automatic closed-loop contrast media injector was added to improve catheter location (n=41, 62.5±11 years, 71% male, 34% persistent AF).
resultsTotal procedure time was 78±19 and 85.5±18.5 minutes, and mean fluoroscopy time was 30±9 and 29.5±8.7 minutes for the first and second groups, respectively (NS); acute success rate was 97% and 97.5%, with a mean of 14.7±5 and 17.6±5.4 RF applications, respectively (p=0.02); and mean total burning time of 10.3±3.6 and 12±4 minutes, respectively (p=0.08). Mean contrast used was 60±18 mL versus 203±65 mL, with no effect on renal function or major complications. One year freedom from AF was 77% and 83%, respectively (p=0.5).
conclusionsAddition of contrast injections to standard nMARQ™ procedure is feasible and safe. It has no benefit in routine use but further studies may confirm its potential added value to EAM in catheter localization by newly trained operators and in selective cases of large/common PV anatomy.
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.