ArticleJournal of arrhythmia2023
Novel protocol for optimal utilization of HPSD approach for pulmonary vein isolation.
Article in Journal of arrhythmia, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- High-power, very-high-power, and low-power radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation: A Bayesian network meta-analysis.Heart rhythm O2 · 2026Article
- Clinical feasibility of high-power short-duration strategy at the sites adjacent to the esophagus during laser balloon-based pulmonary vein isolation.Journal of arrhythmia · 2025Article
- Comprehensive review of pulmonary vein stenosis post-atrial fibrillation ablation: diagnosis, management, and prognosis.Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics · 2024Review
- Novel protocol for optimal utilization of HPSD approach for pulmonary vein isolation.Journal of arrhythmia · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The efficiency of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) depends on the durability of RF lesions. Recent studies documented sustained continuity of ablation lines, improvements in durability, and expected clinical outcomes through altered settings in duration and power. However, the ablation strategy has not been adapted to this new approach and different biophysics of lesion formation. Purpose: The aim of this study was to demonstrate that by adjusting the ablation approach to the broader geometry of lesions by increasing the minimal spacing between adjacent RF, a further significant reduction of procedural time while maintaining sufficient long-term outcomes is achievable. Methods: The presented study was a prospective, observational multi-center trial. The periprocedural data were compared with data from a consecutively collected historical cohort. Results: In total, 196 patients were included (mean age 62 ± 11 years, male 64.3%). Procedural duration, RF time, and LA dwelling time were significantly shorter in the HPSD group compared with the standard group (73 ± 26 min vs. 98 ± 36 min, Conclusion: Increasing the minimal distance between individual application points simplifies AF ablation and further reduces procedure time without negative effects on efficacy and safety. Larger studies are needed to optimally utilize this approach.
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.