ArticleJournal of arrhythmia2020
The use of a high-power (50 W), ablation index-guided protocol for ablation of the cavotricuspid isthmus.
Article in Journal of arrhythmia, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Two High-Power Ablation Strategies for Typical Atrial Flutter: Acute and Long-Term Outcome.Annals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc · 2025Article
- Safety and efficacy of intracardiac echocardiography-guided zero-fluoroscopy ablation in atrial fibrillation patients: a comparative study of high-power short-duration and low-power long-duration strategies.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- Impact of tag index and local electrogram for successful first-pass cavotricuspid isthmus ablation.Heart rhythm O2 · 2023Article
- Local impedance measurements during contact force-guided cavotricuspid isthmus ablation for predicting an effective radiofrequency ablation.Journal of arrhythmia · 2022Article
- The use of a high-power (50 W), ablation index-guided protocol for ablation of the cavotricuspid isthmus.Journal of arrhythmia · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHigh-power (HP) ablation protocols are increasingly used for ablation procedures to shorten procedural times and improve short- and long-term success. The ablation index (AI) combines contact force, power settings, and ablation time. It can be used in combination with HP protocols to guide operators toward standardized lesions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate both a HP and AI-guided strategy for ablation of the cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) in patients with typical atrial flutter (AFL).
methodsIn this single-center study, consecutive patients with typical AFL (n = 52, mean age 68.7 ± 8.3 years, 21/52 [40.4%] female) underwent AI-guided HP radiofrequency (RF) ablation of the CTI. Ablation was performed with 50 W and AI target values of 550 with a maximum ablation duration of 25 seconds per lesion. Target interlesion distance was ≤6 mm. Ablation was performed with a 3.5 mm porous tip Smarttouch SF catheter.
resultsAcute CTI block was achieved in 52 of 52 patients (100%), and first-pass conduction block was achieved in 41 of 52 patients (80.4%). Spontaneous reconduction after 30 minutes waiting time occurred in 1 of 52 (1.9%) patient. Average ablation time until CTI block was 3:51 ± 1:40; 2:33 ± 1:01 minutes of bonus ablation pulses were applied after CTI block. An audible steam pop was noted in one patient (1.9%). No major complications occurred. After a mean follow-up of 193.7 ± 152.2 days, no patient showed recurrence of typical AFL.
conclusionIn this pilot study, AI-guided HP ablation of the CTI was fast, safe, and effective.
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.