ArticleCardiology and therapy2023
Comparative Effectiveness of Various Radiofrequency Ablation Catheters in the Ablation of Typical Atrial Flutter.
Article in Cardiology and therapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAlthough ablation of typical atrial flutter (AFL) can be easily achieved with radiofrequency energy (RF), no studies compare the effectiveness of different ablation catheters. Our study aimed to compare the efficacy of various types of ablation catheters in treating typical AFL.
methodsWe analyzed patients with AFL who underwent RF ablation by a single operator at our institution. Successful ablation was evidenced by a bidirectional conduction block (trans-isthmus conduction time ≥ 130 ms or double potentials ≥ 90 ms). Logistic regression was used to compare success rate and linear regression to compare lesion time.
resultsOut of 222 patients, only six did not meet the success criteria (2.7%). The catheters used were non-irrigated, large-tip, internally irrigated (Chili II Boston Scientific), and externally irrigated (non-force-sensing) catheters (Cool Path, Abbott). An externally irrigated force-sensing catheter (TactiCath, Abbott) was used with > 10 gm of force and (LPLD) setting (30 W- 45 °C- 60 s), and high-power short-duration (HPSD) setting (50 W- 43 °C - 12 s). No complications were encountered. The catheter type had no statistically significant association with ablation success. With the use of externally irrigated catheter with contract force-sensing and HPSD settings, statistically significantly shortening of lesion time was achieved 758.3 s, [CI - 1128.29, - 388.35 s] followed by LPLD by 419.0 s [CI - 808.49, - 29.47 s].
conclusionsThe typical atrial flutter radiofrequency ablation procedure had a high success rate, which was not influenced by the type of ablation catheter. Contact force ablation catheter and HPSD are associated with shorter total lesion time.
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.