SynthesisJournal of interventional cardiology2022
Comparison of Effectiveness and Safety between High-Power Short-Duration Ablation and Conventional Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of interventional cardiology, 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.
- Comparison of high-power single-ring isolation and box isolation in elderly patients with persistent atrial fibrillation.BMC geriatrics · 2025Article
- Proactive esophageal cooling during radiofrequency cardiac ablation: data update including applications in very high-power short duration ablation.Expert review of medical devices · 2025Review
- Comparative Analysis of Clinical Outcomes of High-power, Short-duration Ablation versus Low-power, Long-duration Ablation Strategy in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: A Comprehensive Umbrella Review of Meta-analyses.The Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management · 2024Review
- High-Power Short-Duration Ablation of Paroxysmal and Persistent Atrial Fibrillation.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety between high-power short-duration (HPSD) radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and conventional RFA in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods: Studies comparing HPSD and traditional applications in patients undergoing initial catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation from inception through December 2021 were searched on Pubmed, Medline, Cochrane, and Clinicaltrials.gov. Results: The meta-analysis included seventeen studies with a total of 4934 patients. HPSD group decreased procedure duration (mean difference (MD) -38.28 min, Conclusion: HPSD RFA was associated with shorter procedure duration, higher freedom from atrial arrhythmia, and comparable safety compared to conventional RFA.
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.