ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
An Evaluation of Phase Analysis to Interpret Atrial Activation Patterns during Persistent Atrial Fibrillation for Targeted Ablation.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- "Pharmacological" analysis of atrial fibrillation maintenance mechanism: reentry, wavelets, or focal?Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPhase analysis has been used to identify and localize atrial fibrillation (AF) sources for targeted ablation. We previously demonstrated that repetitive wannabe reentry (incomplete reentry) often generated an apparent stable rotor using phase analysis. The misinterpretation caused by phase analysis using atrial electrograms (AEGs) may result from detecting inaccurate time points at phase inversion (π to -π) in the instantaneous phase waveform converted from AEG. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of phase analysis to detect atrial activations recorded from the high-density mapping of AF in patients with persistent and long-standing persistent (LSP) AF. METHODS AND
resultsDuring open heart surgery, we recorded activation from both atria simultaneously using 512 electrodes in 7 patients with persistent and LSP AF. The phase analysis was compared to manual measurements during 4 s of data. For the accuracy of activation sequence maps, a successful recording site was defined as having ≤4 mismatched activation times during the 4 s. In all AF episodes, the accuracy of the phase analysis was only 82% of the total number of activation times due to either activation time differences (14.7%), under-sensing (2.7%), or over-sensing (0.6%). Only 67.9% of the total recording sites met the requirement of a successful recording site by phase analysis. In unsuccessful recording sites, AEG characteristics were relatively irregular cycle length (CL), complex AEG, and double potential AEG.
conclusionThe phase analysis was less accurate in recording sites with a relatively irregular CL, complex AEG, or double potential AEG. As a result, phase analysis may lead to the misinterpretation of atrial activation patterns during AF. A visual review of the original AEG is needed to confirm the detected AF sources of phase analysis before performing targeted ablation.
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.