ArticleJournal of arrhythmia2019
How is Contact Force implemented in routine clinical practice? Results from a French National and Monaco Survey.
Article in Journal of arrhythmia, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- How is Contact Force implemented in routine clinical practice? Results from a French National and Monaco Survey.Journal of arrhythmia · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCombination of elementary parameters (force, time, power, impedance drop) has been proposed to optimize radiofrequency (RF) delivery. They have been partially validated in clinical studies.
aimsThe aim of this study was to assess contact-force (CF) implementation into clinical practice.
methodsA 36-question electronic form was sent to 105 electrophysiologists (EP) including some general questions concerning the practice of catheter atrial fibrillation ablation and items concerning the parameters used for CF-guided ablation.
resultsAnswers from 98 EP were collected (93% response rate). The CF-catheters used were Smart Touch, Biosense (52%), Tacticath, Saint-Jude Medical (12%), or both (27%) and no CF (9%). The power applied on the left atrial (LA) anterior (LAAW) and posterior (LAPW) wall was, respectively, 26-34 W (for 73% of the EP) and below 25 W (88% of the EP). Forty percent of the Visitag
conclusionsThe parameters used for CF-guided ablation are widely variable among the different operators. Further prospective studies are needed to validate the targets for automatic annotation of the RF applications.
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.