Trial reportPloS one2019
Multicentre randomised trial comparing contact force with electrical coupling index in atrial flutter ablation (VERISMART trial).
Trial report in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02490033 (Randomised Trial Comparing Conventional Versus Contact Force and Electrical Coupling Index in Atrial Flutter Ablation), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 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.
Randomised Trial Comparing Conventional Versus Contact Force and Electrical Coupling Index in Atrial Flutter Ablation
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cavotricuspid isthmus ablation for atrial flutter guided by contact force related parameters: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Recurrent atrial arrhythmia in a randomised controlled trial comparing contact force-guided and contact force-blinded ablation for typical atrial flutter.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2022Trial
- Optimal Local Impedance Parameters for Catheter Ablation of the Cavo-tricuspid Isthmus in Atrial Flutter Patients: A Retrospective Analysis.HCA healthcare journal of medicine · 2025Article
- Contact Force-Guided versus Contact Force-Blinded Cavo-Tricuspid Isthmus Ablation for Atrial Flutter: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Local impedance and contact force guidance to predict successful cavotricuspid isthmus ablation with a zero-fluoroscopy approach.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
- Safety and chronic lesion characterization of pulsed field ablation in a Porcine model.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2021Article
- Local impedance-guided ablation and ultra-high density mapping versus conventional or contact force-guided ablation with mapping for treatment of cavotricuspid isthmus dependent atrial flutter.Indian pacing and electrophysiology journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionElectrical coupling index (ECI) and contact force (CF) have been developed to aid lesion formation during catheter ablation. ECI measures tissue impedance and capacitance whilst CF measures direct contact. The aim was to determine whether the presence of catheter / tissue interaction information, such as ECI and CF, reduce time to achieve bidirectional cavotricuspid isthmus block during atrial flutter (AFL) ablation.
methodsPatients with paroxysmal or persistent AFL were randomised to CF visible (range 5-40g), CF not visible, ECI visible (change of 12%) or ECI not visible. Follow-up occurred at 3 and 6 months and included a 7 day ECG recording. The primary endpoint was time to bidirectional cavotricuspid isthmus block.
results114 patients were randomised, 16 were excluded. Time to bidirectional block was significantly shorter when ECI was visible (median 30.0 mins (IQR 31) to median 10.5mins (IQR 12) p 0.023) versus ECI not visible. There was a trend towards a shorter time to bidirectional block when CF was visible. Higher force was applied when CF was visible (median 9.03g (IQR 7.4) vs. 11.3g (5.5) p 0.017). There was no difference in the acute recurrence of conduction between groups. The complication rate was 2%, AFL recurrence was 1.1% and at 6 month follow-up, 12% had atrial fibrillation.
conclusionThe use of tissue contact information during AFL ablation was associated with reduced time taken to achieve bidirectional block when ECI was visible. Contact force data improved contact when visible with a trend towards a reduction in the procedural endpoint. ClinicalTrials.gov trial identifier: NCT02490033.
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.