ArticleJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2024
Does the same lesion index mean the same efficacy and safety profile: influence of the differential power, time, and contact force on the lesion size and steam pops under the same lesion index.
Article in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Ring Char Formation During High-Power, Short-Duration Ablation Using an Irrigated Six-Hole Contact Force Sensing Tip Catheter.Journal of arrhythmia · 2026Article
- Pacing and Ablation Technique Using Microelectrode for Pulmonary Vein Isolation Using a Local Impedance-Guided Catheter.Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 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
13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe lesion index (LSI) helps predict the lesion size and is widely used in ablation of various types of arrhythmias. However, the influence of the ablation settings on the lesion formation and incidence of steam pops under the same LSI value remains unclear.
methodsUsing a contact force (CF) sensing catheter (TactiCath™) in an ex vivo swine left ventricle model, RF lesions were created with a combination of various power steps (30 W, 40 W, 50 W) and CFs (10 g, 20 g, 30 g, 40 g, 50 g) under the same LSI values (5.2 and 7.0). The correlation between the lesion formation and ablation parameters was evaluated.
resultsNinety RF lesions were created under a target LSI value of 5.2, and eighty-four were developed under a target LSI value of 7.0. In the LSI 5.2 group, the resultant lesion size widely varied according to the ablation power, and a multiple regression analysis indicated that the ablation energy delivered was the best predictor of the lesion formation. To create a lesion depth > 4 mm, an ablation energy of 393 J is the best cutoff value, suggesting a possibility that ablation energy may be used as a supplemental marker that better monitors the progress of the lesion formation in an LSI 5.2 ablation. In contrast, such inconsistency was not obvious in the LSI 7.0 group. Compared with 30 W, the 50-W ablation exhibited a higher incidence of steam pops in both the LSI 5.2 and 7.0 groups.
conclusionsThe LSI-lesion size relationship was not necessarily consistent, especially for an LSI of 5.2. To avoid any unintentional, weak ablation, the ablation energy may be a useful supportive parameter (393 J as a cutoff value for a 4-mm depth) during ablation with an LSI around 5.2. Thanks to a prolonged ablation time, the LSI-lesion size relationship is consistent for an LSI of 7.0. However, it is accompanied by a high incidence of steam pops. Care should be given to the ablation settings even when the same LSI value is used.
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.