SynthesisCurrent cardiology reports2023
Index-Guided High-Power Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Study.
Synthesis in Current cardiology reports, 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.
- Effects of dexmedetomidine-remifentanil on hemodynamics and inflammatory responses in patients undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation.Open life sciences · 2026Article
- A study on risk factors of acute ischemic stroke after radiofrequency ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Comparison of 3C4L and 2C3L radiofrequency ablation strategies for persistent atrial fibrillation: procedural profile and 2-year outcomes.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Electrophysiological characteristics of pulmonary vein conduction recovery after radiofrequency ablation of atrial fibrillation.Scientific reports · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewStudies have suggested the superiority of high-power compared to standard-power radiofrequency ablation ablation (RFCA). This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of high-power compared to standard-power RFCA guided by ablation index (AI) or lesion index (LSI). RECENT
findingsA systematic review and meta-analysis study comparing IGHP and IGLP approaches for AF ablation was conducted. The relevant published studies comparing IGHP and IGSP methods for RFCA in AF patients until October 2022 were collected from Cochrane, ProQuest, PubMed, and ScienceDirect. A total of 2579 AF patients from 11 studies were included, 1682 received IGHP RFCA, and 897 received IGSP RFCA. To achieve successful pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), the IGHP RFCA group had a significantly shorter procedure time than the IGHP RFCA group (mean difference (MD) -19.91 min; 95% CI -25.23 to -14.59 min; p < 0.01), radiofrequency (RF) application time (MD -10.92 min; 95% CI -14.70 to -7.13 min; p < 0.01), and fewer number of lesions (MD -10.90; 95% CI -18.77 to -3.02; p < 0.01) than the IGSP RFCA. First-pass PVI was significantly greater in the IGHP RFCA group than in the IGSP RFCA group (risk ratio (RR) 1.17; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.28; p < 0.01). The IGHP RFCA is an effective and efficient strategy for AF ablation. The superiority of IGHP RFCA includes the shorter procedure time, shorter RF application time, fewer number of lesions for complete PVI, and more excellent first-pass PVI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37874469What 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.