ArticleJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2023
Comparison of myocardial injury and inflammation between ablation index-guided and conventional contact force-guided ablation in atrial fibrillation patients.
Article in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety and efficacy of the pulsed field ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Pooled it
- Meta-analysis of the safety and efficacy between pulsed field ablation vs. traditional ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Electrophysiological characteristics of pulmonary vein conduction recovery after radiofrequency ablation of atrial fibrillation.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAblation index (AI)-guided ablation improves the incidence of arrhythmia recurrence as compared to conventional contact force (CF)-guided ablation. The aim of this study was to elucidate the differences in the biomarkers associated with myocardial injury and inflammation between conventional CF-guided and AI-guided ablation.
methodsAtrial fibrillation (AF) patients who underwent pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) from the Osaka Rosai Atrial Fibrillation ablation (ORAF) registry were enrolled. We divided the patients into two groups: conventional CF-guided PVI (CF group) and AI-guided PVI (AI group). The differences in biomarkers associated with myocardial injury and inflammation, and long-term durability of PVI between the two groups were evaluated.
resultsThis study population included a total of 794 patients (CF-guided, 241 patients; AI-guided, 553 patients). Total application time was significantly shorter, and total application number was significantly smaller in AI than CF group. High-sensitive troponin I (hs-TnI) post-ablation was significantly higher in AI than CF group (p < 0.001), even after taking the total application number and total application time into consideration. No significant differences in inflammatory markers changes from pre- to post-ablation were observed between the two groups. AI-guided ablation was significantly associated with the hs-TnI post-ablation by multiple regression analysis. The PV reconnection ratio was significantly smaller in AI than CF group (p = 0.037).
conclusionsAI-guided ablation had the ability to create larger lesions than CF-guided ablation despite no increase in inflammation and achieved the better PVI durability than that of CF-guided.
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.