ArticleJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2021
Long-term safety and effectiveness of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation ablation using a porous tip contact force-sensing catheter from the SMART SF trial.
Article in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2021. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and Safety of Catheter Ablation in Very Elderly Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: Short- To Mid-Term Outcomes From a Multicenter Study.Journal of arrhythmia · 2026Article
- Pulsed field ablation: focused on atrial fibrillation ablation.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2026Review
- Invasive strategies for rhythm control of atrial fibrillation: a narrative review.Journal of Yeungnam medical science · 2024Article
- Procedural Efficiency, Efficacy, and Safety of High-Power, Short-Duration Radiofrequency Ablation Delivered by STSF Catheter for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 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
13 authors at 11 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe prospective, multicenter SMART SF trial demonstrated the acute safety and effectiveness of the 56-hole porous tip irrigated contact force (CF) catheter for drug-refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) ablation with a low primary adverse event rate (2.5%), leading to FDA approval of the catheter. Here, we are reporting the long-term effectiveness and safety results that have not yet been reported.
methodsAblations were performed using the 56-hole porous tip irrigated CF catheter guided by the 3D mapping system stability module. The primary effectiveness endpoint was freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmia (including atrial fibrillation, atrial tachycardia, and/or atrial flutter), based on electrocardiographic data at 12 months. Atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence occurring 3 months post procedure, acute procedural failures such as lack of entrance block confirmation of all PVs, and undergoing repeat procedure for atrial fibrillation in the evaluation period (91 to 365 days post the initial ablation procedure) were considered to be effectiveness failures.
resultsSeventy-eight patients (age 64.8 ± 9.7 years; male 52.6%; Caucasian 96.2%) participated in the 12-month effectiveness evaluation. Mean follow-up time was 373.5 ± 45.4 days. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of freedom from 12-month atrial tachyarrhythmia was 74.9%. Two procedure-related pericardial effusion events were reported at 92 and 180 days post procedure. There were no pulmonary vein stenosis complications or deaths reported through the 12-month follow-up period.
conclusionsThe SMART SF 12-month follow-up evaluation corroborates the early safety and effectiveness success previously reported for PAF ablation with STSF.
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.