ArticlePacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE2022
Impact of high frequency stimulation to confirm a complete box isolation in catheter ablation of non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.
Article in Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE, 2022. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Successful isolation of persistent left superior vena cava using very high-power, short-duration radiofrequency ablation: Case report.HeartRhythm case reports · 2026Article
- Potential Effect of Box-Shaped Pulmonary Vein Isolation on Persistent Atrial Fibrillation in a Patient With Severe Pectus Excavatum.Clinical case reports · 2025Article
- Validation Strategy for Pulmonary Vein Isolation in Patients With Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation in Long-Term Maintaining Sinus Rhythm: A Randomized Controlled Study.Cardiology research and practice · 2024Article
- Impact of high frequency stimulation to confirm a complete box isolation in catheter ablation of non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 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
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPulmonary vein (PV) isolation (PVI) including the left atrial posterior wall (LAPW) (Box-PVI) is proposed as an additional strategy for non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (NPAF), however, the efficacy remains controversial. The more reliable and durable the Box-PVI we can create, the better the rhythm outcomes might be than with a conventional PVI alone. This study focused on the potential exit conduction of the box lesion and investigated whether the conventional Box-PVI would be sufficient. METHODS AND
resultsWe enrolled 350 consecutive patients with NPAF that underwent a conventional encircling Box-PVI and examined whether latent exit conduction and dormant "exit" conduction independently remained on the LAPW and in the PVs using high frequency stimulation (HFS) and an adenosine triphosphate (ATP) injection. All electrograms inside the box lesion were eliminated in all cases, however, HFS inside the box propagated outward in 23 cases (6.6%) without any exit conduction by conventional burst stimulation, and 24 cases (6.9%) exhibited only dormant "exit" conduction of the LAPW. Additional ablation where positive HFSs were observed created a complete bidirectional Box-PVI in 43 (41.3%) of the cases without a first pass Box-PVI. The recurrence rates depended on the groups classified according to the HFS response.
conclusionHFS delivered with an ATP injection on the LAPW and in the PVs following a Box-PVI could not only elucidate true exit block but also identified possible incomplete lesions or connections outside the ablation line, whose elimination could achieve a complete Box-PVI leading to a better rhythm outcome.
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.