ArticleJournal of atrial fibrillation
Clinical and Procedural Effects of Transitioning to Contact Force Guided Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation.
Article in Journal of atrial fibrillation. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- High-power short-duration versus standard-power standard-duration settings for repeat atrial fibrillation ablation.Heart and vessels · 2022Article
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Direct Comparison of Second-Generation Cryoballoon Ablation and Contact Force-Sensing Radiofrequency Ablation in Patients with Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA major innovation in atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation has been the introduction of contact force (CF) sensing catheters.
objectiveTo evaluate procedural and clinical effects of transitioning to CF-guided AF ablation.
methodsConsecutive AF ablation patients were studiedduring the period of time of transitioning from a non-CF to CF sensing catheter. Procedural data recorded was total radiofrequency time, time to isolate the left pulmonary veins (LPVs), and time to isolate the right pulmonary veins (RPVs). Clinically, the 3 and 12-month maintenance of sinus rhythm was noted and compared by: paroxysmal vs. persistent AF; CT scan LA volume more or less than 150 cc; CHA2DS2VASC more or less than 2; and LVEF more or less than 55%. Safety data was recorded as well.
resultsTotal ablation times were shorter (113 vs.146 min, p=0.011)when using the CF catheters compared to non-CF ablations. This was driven by a decrease in both LPV (46 vs.72 min, p<0.001) and RPV time (54 vs. 75 min, p=0.002).The use of CF catheter did not change the overall percentage of patients in sinus rhythm at 3 and 12-months of follow up. However, sinus rhythm was more frequent at 12 months with CF ablation inpatients with an LA volume of more than 150 cc when compared to non-CF ablation (84.6% and 52.4%, p=0.03). There was no difference in outcomes with stratification by CHA2DS2VASC score or LVEF. No significant difference in complications was noted.
conclusionsFor AF ablation, the initial use of CF-sensing technology reduced procedure times with similar overall sinus rhythm maintenance at 3 and 12 months. CF improved 12-month outcomes in patients with an enlarged LA.
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.