ArticleJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2024
Comparison of voltages between atria: differences in sinus rhythm and atrial fibrillation.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dynamic Behavior of Left Atrial Low-Voltage Areas in Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: Implications for Substrate-Guided Ablation.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2026Observational
- Right Atrial Function as a Novel Predictor for New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation in Transthyretin Amyloid Cardiomyopathy.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Article
- Unintended lesion formation and conduction block in the posterior left atrium during pulmonary vein isolation using a pentaspline pulsed field ablation catheter.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUltra high-density mapping systems allow for comparison of atrial electroanatomical maps in unprecedented detail. Atrial scar determined by voltages and surface area between atria, rhythm and atrial fibrillation (AF) types was assessed.
methodsLeft (LA) and right atrial (RA) maps were created using Rhythmia HDx in patients listed for ablation for paroxysmal (PAF, sinus rhythm (SR) maps only) or persistent AF (PeAF, AF and SR maps). Electrograms on corresponding SR/AF maps were paired for direct comparison. Percentage surface area of scar was assigned low- (LVM, ≤ 0.05 mV), intermediate- (IVM, 0.05-0.5 mV) or normal voltage myocardium, (NVM, > 0.5 mV).
resultsThirty-eight patients were recruited generating 96 maps using 913,480 electrograms. Paired SR-AF bipolar electrograms showed fair correlation in LA (Spearman's ρ = 0.32) and weak correlation in RA (ρ = 0.19) and were significantly higher in SR in both (LA: 0.61 mV (0.20-1.67) vs 0.31 mV (0.10-0.74), RA: 0.68 mV (0.19-1.88) vs 0.47 mV (0.14-1.07), p < 0.0005 both). Voltages were significantly higher in patients with PAF over PeAF, (LA: 1.13 mV (0.39-2.93) vs 0.52 mV (0.16-1.49); RA: 0.93 mV (0.24-2.46) vs 0.57 mV (0.17-1.69)). Minimal differences were seen in electrogram voltages between atria. Significantly more IVM/LVM surface areas were seen in AF over SR (LA only, p < 0005), and PeAF over PAF (LA: p = 0.01, RA: p = 0.04). There was minimal difference between atria within patients.
conclusionsUltra high-density mapping shows paired electrograms correlate poorly between SR and AF. SR electrograms are typically (but not always) larger than those in AF. Patients with PeAF have a lower global electrogram voltage than those with PAF. Electrogram voltages are similar between atria within individual patients.
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.