ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023
Safety of the Radiofrequency Balloon for Pulmonary Vein Isolation: A Focus on Lesion Metric Analysis of Posterior Electrodes.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2023. 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.
- Pulmonary vein isolation durability with fluoroscopy or 3D mapping-guided radiofrequency balloon ablation: a mandated remap study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Shortened radiofrequency delivery time to optimize efficiency and safety of pulmonary vein isolation with the radiofrequency balloon: insights from the COLLABORATE registry.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previous clinical studies on pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) with radiofrequency balloons (RFB) reported safe and effective procedures for a 20 s RF delivery via posterior electrodes. Recent recommendations from the manufacturer suggest reducing the application time to 15 s on the posterior wall (PW) when facing the esophagus region. Here, we retrospectively assess whether 15 s of RF delivery time on posterior electrodes is safe while still ensuring lesion metrics of sufficient quality. This retrospective study included 133 patients with paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation who underwent PVI using an RFB (Heliostar, Biosense Webster, Inc., Irvine, CA, USA) at two European centers. The ablation protocol was set for an RF duration of 20 s/60 s for the posterior/anterior electrodes. A multielectrode temperature probe was systematically used. In the case of an esophageal temperature rise (ETR) above 42 °C (ETR+), an endoscopic evaluation was performed. All posterior electrode lesion metric dynamics (temperature (T) and impedance (Z)) were collected from the RFB generator and analyzed offline. In total, 2435 posterior electrode applications were analyzed. With an RF delivery of 19.8 (19.7-19.8) s, the median impedance drop was 18.4 (12.2-25.2) Ω, while the temperature rise was 11.1 (7.1-14.9) °C. Accordingly, impedance (84.6 (79.3-90.2) Ω) and temperature plateaus (38 (35.3-41.1) °C) were reached at 13.9 (10.6-16) s and 16.4 (12.6-18.5) s, respectively. Overall, 99.6% and 95.8% of electrodes reached 90% (16.6 Ω) and 95% (17.5 Ω) of their impedance drops within 15 s of RF delivery, while 97.2% and 92.8% achieved 90% (34.2 °C) and 95% (36.1 °C) of their temperature rise to reach the plateaus within 15 s of RF delivery. An ETR >42 °C occurred in 37 (30.1%) patients after 17.7 ± 2.3 s of RF delivery. In the ETR+ group, the impedance drop and temperature rise on the posterior electrodes were higher compared to patients where ETR was <42 °C. Two asymptomatic thermal esophageal injuries were observed. In conclusion, 15 s of RF delivery on the posterior electrodes provides a good balance between safety, with no esophageal temperature rise, and efficacy with high-profile lesion metrics.
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.