Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31696309›Full record

ReviewHerzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie2019

[Catheter ablation of cardiac arrhythmias : Forms of energy and biophysical principles].

Thomas Beiert, Jan W Schrickel

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Thomas BeiertMedizinische Klinik und Poliklinik II, Sektion Elektrophysiologie, Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Venusberg-Campus 1, 53127, Bonn, Deutschland. thomas.beiert@ukbonn.de.
Jan W SchrickelMedizinische Klinik und Poliklinik II, Sektion Elektrophysiologie, Universitätsklinikum Bonn, Venusberg-Campus 1, 53127, Bonn, Deutschland.
University Hospital Bonn · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Catheter ablation of cardiac arrhythmias has evolved over the years and has become a cornerstone in the modern treatment of various supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias. The goal of ablation is to permanently damage myocardium that is critically involved in the individual arrhythmia mechanism. Different catheters and forms of energy are available. Radiofrequency (RF) ablation is most common. Application of an alternating current at the catheter tip induces heating of tissue and, thus, leads to ablation of a targeted arrhythmogenic substrate. High temperatures (>70 °C at the catheter tip and >95 °C within the tissue) bear the risk of coagulum formation and steam pops and should be avoided, which limits power application. The evolution of irrigated RF ablation catheters enables the transfer of more power to the tissue and thereby increases the dimensions of the lesions. Cryoablation represents a valuable alternative. Cooling of tissue to -80 °C causes the intra- and extracellular formation of ice crystals, finally resulting in a dense circumscribed scar. The cryomapping procedure grants improved surveillance of the safety of ablation. Cryoenergy is very popular for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) using the cryoballoon. In addition to the laser balloon that is established for PVI, ultrasound, microwaves, and stereotactic irradiation complete the arsenal.

Indexed as

Catheter AblationAtrial FibrillationCryosurgeryHumansPulmonary VeinsArrhythmiaCryoablationLaser balloonPulmonary vein isolationRadiofrequency ablation

Identifiers

PMID31696309
OpenAlexW2987382033

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.