ArticleJournal of arrhythmia2021
Acute and long-term efficacy of ablation index-guided higher power shorter duration ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation: A prospective registry.
Article in Journal of arrhythmia, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04379557 (Ablation Index Guided High Power Ablation for Pulmonary Vein Isolation in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Ablation Index Guided High Power Ablation for Pulmonary Vein Isolation in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparison between High-Power Short-Duration and Conventional Ablation Strategy in Atrial Fibrillation: An Updated Meta-Analysis.Cardiovascular therapeutics · 2022Pooled it
- Atrial volumetrics and recurrence after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Catheter ablation and thoracoscopic ablation in long persistent atrial fibrillation with large left atrium.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Ablation index-guided high-power ablation for superior vena cava isolation in patients with atrial fibrillation.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2022Article
- Acute and long-term efficacy of ablation index-guided higher power shorter duration ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation: A prospective registry.Journal of arrhythmia · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTheoretically, targeting the same ablation index (AI) using higher power may achieve the same lesion size with a shorter ablation time. We evaluated the acute and long-term efficacy of higher-powered ablation guided by ablation index (HPAI) compared with conventional-powered ablation guided by AI (CPAI) for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).
methodsDrug refractory symptomatic AF patients who had been ablated with 40 W on the anterior/roof segments and 30 W on the posterior/inferior/carina segments were enrolled (HPAI group). We compared the HPAI group with the CPAI group who were ablated with 30 W on the anterior/roof segments and 25 W on the posterior/inferior/carina segments. The same AI was targeted (≥450 on the anterior/roof segments and ≥350 on the posterior/inferior/carina segments). We compared ablation time, acute pulmonary vein reconnection (PVR) and 1-year AF recurrence between the two groups.
resultsA total of 118 patients were included (86 in the HPAI group and 32 in the CPAI group, paroxysmal AF, 73%). There was no significant difference in the acute PVR rate between the HPAI and the CPAI groups (3.7% vs. 4.2%,
conclusionsIncreased power during AF ablation, using the same AI targets, reduced the procedure and ablation times, and showed a comparable acute and long-term outcome without compromising safety. CLINICAL
trial registrationhttps://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT04379557.
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.