ArticleHeart and vessels2019
Coronary sinus catheter placement via left cubital vein for phrenic nerve stimulation during pulmonary vein isolation.
Article in Heart and vessels, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Placement of the Coronary Sinus Catheter via the Right Cubital Vein During Atrial Fibrillation Ablation.Circulation reports · 2025Article
- Cubital vein access provides a practical alternative to internal jugular vein access for coronary sinus catheter placement.Journal of arrhythmia · 2024Article
- Detection of Epicardial Connection Through Intercaval Bundle Involving Right Pulmonary Veins After Ipsilateral Circumferential Ablation by Intra-Atrial Activation Sequence Pacing From the Right Pulmonary Vein.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2024Article
- Comparison of Radiofrequency and Cryoballoon Pulmonary Vein Ablation for the Early and Late Recurrence of Atrial Fibrillation.Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Phrenic nerve (PN) stimulation is essential for the elimination of PN palsy during balloon-based pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). Although ultrasound-guided vascular access is safe, insertion of a PN stimulation catheter via central venous access carries a potential risk of the development of mechanical complications. We evaluated the safety of a left cubital vein approach for positioning a 20-electrode atrial cardioversion (BeeAT) catheter in the coronary sinus (CS), and the feasibility of right PN pacing from the superior vena cava (SVC) using proximal electrodes of the BeeAT catheter. In total, 106 consecutive patients who underwent balloon-based PVI with a left cubital vein approach for BeeAT catheter positioning were retrospectively assessed. The left cubital approach was successful in 105 patients (99.1%), and catheter insertion into the CS was possible for 104 patients (99.0%). Among these patients, constant right PN pacing from the SVC was obtained for 89 patients (89/104, 85.6%). In five patients, transient loss of right PN capture occurred during right pulmonary vein ablation. No persistent right PN palsy was observed. Small subcutaneous hemorrhage was observed in eight patients (7.5%). Neuropathy, pseudoaneurysm, arteriovenous fistula, and perforations associated with the left cubital approach were not detected. Body mass index was significantly higher in the right PN pacing failure group than in the right PN pacing success group (26.2 ± 3.2 vs. 23.8 ± 3.8; P = 0.025). CS catheter placement with a left cubital vein approach for right PN stimulation was found to be safe and feasible. Right PN pacing from the SVC using a BeeAT catheter was successfully achieved in the majority of the patients. This approach may prove to be preferable for non-obese patients.
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.