ArticleHeart rhythm O22022
Magnetic resonance imaging-guided conventional catheter ablation of isthmus-dependent atrial flutter using active catheter imaging.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety, Efficacy, and 2-Year Outcomes of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance-Guided Ablation of Isthmus-Dependent Atrial Flutter.JACC. Case reports · 2025Article
- Radiofrequency ablation guided by real-time cardiovascular magnetic resonance.La Radiologia medica · 2024Review
- Article
- Electrophysiological cardiovascular MR: procedure-ready mesh model generation for interventional guidance based on non-selective excitation compressed sensing whole heart imaging.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Real-time cardiovascular magnetic resonance-guided radiofrequency ablation: A comprehensive review.World journal of cardiology · 2023Review
- Cardiac magnetic resonance-guided cardiac ablation: a case series of an early experience.European heart journal supplements : journal of the European Society of Cardiology · 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
12 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Interventional cardiac magnetic resonance (iCMR) has been established as a radiation-free alternative compared to standard fluoroscopy-guided catheter ablation for cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI)-dependent atrial flutter to image anatomy, structural alterations, and further catheter guidance. Objective: The purpose of this study was to explore the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of CTI ablations performed completely in the iCMR suite using active catheter imaging. Methods: Consecutive patients underwent iCMR-guided catheter ablation for CTI-dependent atrial flutter. Procedures were performed in a 1.5-T magnetic resonance (MR) imaging unit with MR-conditional ablation catheters. Catheter guidance was achieved using active catheter imaging via integrated MR receive tip coils. Acute success, periprocedural complications, and short-term follow-up were collected for further analysis. Results: All patients (N = 15; 73% male; median age 70 years; interquartile range [67-82]) achieved acute procedural success without any complication. Median procedural time was 43 minutes [33-58] with median radiofrequency delivery time of 18 minutes [12-26]. Postprocedural lesion visualization scanning was completed in a median of 32 minutes [10-42]. None of the patients with 6-month follow-up had atrial flutter recurrence. Conclusion: In the iCMR suite, CTI-dependent atrial flutter ablation could be achieved safely using active catheter imaging without any complication. It further allows detailed anatomic visualization of the CTI, intraprocedural lesion visualization, and exclusion of pericardial effusion.
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.