Trial reportJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2022
Recurrent atrial arrhythmia in a randomised controlled trial comparing contact force-guided and contact force-blinded ablation for typical atrial flutter.
Trial report in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Atrial Strain Analysis Predicts Atrial Arrhythmia Recurrence Following Cavotricuspid Isthmus Ablation of Typical Atrial Flutter.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Clinical and Electrophysiological Predictors of Isthmus Dependency in Atrial Flutter.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Lesion size index-guided cavotricuspid isthmus linear ablation.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundContact force (CF)-guided catheter ablation (CA) is a novel technology developed to improve efficacy and reduce complications. In a randomised controlled trial (RCT), we previously documented that after 3 months, rate of persistent conduction block was similar with and without using CF while performing CA for typical atrial flutter (AFL). Clinical effect of CF on recurrent arrhythmia is unknown. Our objective is to study recurrent atrial arrhythmia during 12-month follow-up in a RCT investigating whether CF-guided CA for typical AFL is superior to CF-blinded CA.
methodsPatients were randomised 1:1 to CA guided by CF (intervention group) or blinded to CF (control group). After 12 months, patients attended clinical check-up preceded by a 5-day ambulatory Holter monitor recording. Primary outcome was any recurrent atrial arrhythmia ≥ 30 s within 12 months and documented in 12-lead ECG or Holter monitor recording.
resultsWe included 156 patients, four patients withdrew consent and two died during follow-up. Thus, 150 patients were included in final analysis. Recurrent arrhythmia was detected in 36 of 77 (47%) patients in the intervention group, and 32 of 73 patients (44%) in the control group (p = 0.51). Atrial fibrillation was detected in 23 (30%) and 29 (40%) patients in the intervention and control groups respectively. AFL was detected in 11 (14%) and 5 (7%) patients in the intervention and control groups respectively.
conclusionsContact force-guided ablation for typical atrial flutter does not reduce recurrent atrial arrhythmia after 12-month follow-up as compared with ablation blinded for contact force.
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.