ArticleHeliyon2023
Safety and efficacy of ablation index-guided high-power ablation for the treatment of atrial fibrillation.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety and Efficacy of Nighttime Versus Daytime Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: A Multicenter Cohort Study.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2026Article
- High-power, very-high-power, and low-power radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation: A Bayesian network meta-analysis.Heart rhythm O2 · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To study the safety and efficacy of high-power ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) guided by lesion size index (LSI) and impedance cutoff. Method: A total of 223 patients who underwent radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (including paroxyparal atrial fibrillation and persistent atrial fibrillation) in the Department of Cardiology of Anhui Provincial Hospital from February 2019 to July 2020 were enrolled, and were divided into 123 patients in the high-power ablation group (HPAI) and 100 patients in the conventional power ablation group (CPAI). The HPAI group adopted high-power (40-50 W) ablation by impedance cutoff, and the CPAI group adopted conventional-power (30-35 W) ablation. Patients in both groups were ablated guided by the same LSI. For both groups, we analyzed the pulmonary vein single-circle isolation rate, ablation time, X-ray exposure, impedance drop value, incidence of complications, and recurrence rate within one year after operation. Results: There was no significant difference in the success rate of pulmonary vein single-circle isolation, X-ray perspective time, and X-ray exposure quantity between the HPAI group and the CPAI group (88.60% vs 82.00%, Conclusion: High-power ablation guided by LSI and impedance cutoff could significantly shorten the AF ablation time and reduce complications.
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.