Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36056882›Full record

Trial reportEuropace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology2023

Randomized evaluation of redo ablation procedures of atrial fibrillation with focal impulse and rotor modulation-guided procedures: the REDO-FIRM study.

Stefan G Spitzer, John M Miller, Philipp Sommer, Tamas Szili-Torok, Vivek Y Reddy, Georg Nölker, Chris Williams, Anne Sarver, David J Wilber

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Outcomes after redo ablation for the recurrence of atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2025
    Article
  5. Prospective evaluation of low voltage-guided repeat ablation of atrial fibrillation.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2025
    Article
  6. Persistent atrial fibrillation ablation: glimpsing the light ahead?Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Mapping Atrial Fibrillation Drivers.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Electrographic flow mapping of persistent atrial fibrillation: intra- and inter-procedure reproducibility in the absence of 'ground truth'.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2023
    Article
  17. Progress in atrial fibrillation ablation during 25 years of Europace journal.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2023
    Article
  18. Treatment of pathophysiologic propagation outside of the pulmonary veins in retreatment of atrial fibrillation patients: RECOVER AF study.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Stefan G SpitzerPraxisklinik Herz und Gefäße, 01099 Dresden, and Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg, Institute of Medical Technology, 03046 Cottbus, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-7822-2154
John M MillerKrannert Institute of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA.
Philipp SommerHerz-und Diabeteszentrum NRW, Universitätsklinik der Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bad Oeynhausen 32545, Germany.
Tamas Szili-TorokErasmus MC, Rotterdam, 3015 GD, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6895-6936
Vivek Y ReddyHelmsley Electrophysiology Center - Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY 10029, USA.
Georg NölkerChristliches Klinikum Unna, Unna 59423, Germany.
Chris WilliamsAbbott Laboratories, Chicago, IL 60064, USA.
Anne SarverAbbott Laboratories, Chicago, IL 60064, USA.
David J WilberLoyola University Chicago, Chicago, 60660, USA.

Funding

Abbott Laboratories 02274857
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsREDO-FIRM evaluated safety and effectiveness of conventional vs. focal impulse and rotor modulation (FIRM)-guided ablation of recurrent persistent or paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) after an initial AF ablation procedure. METHODS AND

resultsThis prospective, multicentre, randomized study included patients with a single prior AF ablation, but with recurrent AF and reconnected pulmonary veins (PVs). Conventional ablation generally included PV re-isolation; however, additional ablation was permitted per physician discretion. In the FIRM arm, beyond PV re-isolation, basket catheter-based FIRM mapping created dynamic animations of putative rotors, which were targeted for ablation. Between May 2016 and July 2019, 269 subjects were randomized, with 243 subjects completing 12-month follow-up. Ablation beyond re-pulmonary vein isolation, the FIRM vs. Conventional arms did not differ significantly: cavo-tricuspid isthmus -9.0% vs. 15.3%, caval vein isolation -1.5% vs. 0.8%, non-PV trigger -2.2% vs. 3.8%, other -11.9% vs. 13.0%. Single procedure 12-month freedom from AF/atrial tachycardia/atrial flutter-recurrence was 63.3% (76/120) vs. 59.0% (72/122) in the FIRM and Conventional arms (P = 0.3503). Efficacy was similar in the paroxysmal and persistent AF subgroups (P = 0.22 and P = 0.48). The 10-day and 12-month safety endpoints were achieved in 93.3% vs. 93.8% (P = 0.89) and 88.4% vs. 93.4% (P = 0.22) in the FIRM and Conventional arms, respectively.

conclusionsIn REDO-FIRM, as compared to standard ablation, FIRM-guided ablation did not provide additional efficacy in redo ablation procedures, but FIRM-guided ablation was equally safe. Additional studies are necessary to identify any potential population able to benefit from FIRM-guided ablation.

Indexed as

Atrial FibrillationAtrial FlutterCatheter AblationPulmonary VeinsHumansProspective StudiesRecurrenceTreatment OutcomeFocal Impulse and Rotor ModulationRecurrent AFRotor

Identifiers

PMID36056882
PMCPMC10103554

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.