Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38202230›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2023

Dipole Density Guided Catheter Ablation versus Conventional Substrate Modification for Repeat Catheter Ablation of Persistent Atrial Fibrillation.

Jan-Hendrik Schipper, Daniel Steven, Jakob Lüker, Jonas Wörmann, Jan-Hendrik van den Bruck, Karlo Filipovic, Sebastian Dittrich, Cornelia Scheurlen, Susanne Erlhöfer, Friederike Pavel and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Jan-Hendrik SchipperDepartment of Electrophysiology, Heart Center, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937 Cologne, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0208-3295
Daniel StevenDepartment of Electrophysiology, Heart Center, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937 Cologne, Germany.
Jakob LükerDepartment of Electrophysiology, Heart Center, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937 Cologne, Germany.
Jonas WörmannDepartment of Electrophysiology, Heart Center, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937 Cologne, Germany.
Jan-Hendrik van den BruckDepartment of Electrophysiology, Heart Center, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937 Cologne, Germany.
Karlo FilipovicDepartment of Electrophysiology, Heart Center, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937 Cologne, Germany.
Sebastian DittrichDepartment of Electrophysiology, Heart Center, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937 Cologne, Germany.
Cornelia ScheurlenDepartment of Electrophysiology, Heart Center, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937 Cologne, Germany.
Susanne ErlhöferDepartment of Electrophysiology, Heart Center, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937 Cologne, Germany.
Friederike PavelDepartment of Electrophysiology, Heart Center, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937 Cologne, Germany.
Arian SultanDepartment of Electrophysiology, Heart Center, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937 Cologne, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThe optimal ablation strategy for recurrent persistent atrial fibrillation (persAF) after initially successful catheter ablation (CA) remains debatable. Dipole density (DD) guided CA using the AcQMap system has been proven to be feasible and effective in patients with persAF. So far, long-term outcome data for DD-guided CA in patients with recurrence of persAF are sparse. This study sought to assess long-term outcome data in patients undergoing a DD-guided CA for recurrence of persAF after previous CA in comparison to conventional repeat CA. METHODS AND

resultsPatients undergoing DD-guided CA for recurrence of persAF after previous ablation were compared to patients undergoing conventional substrate modification (CSM). A total of 64 patients (32 DD-guided and 32 CSM) were included in this analysis. Procedure duration (DD: 236 ± 61 min; CSM: 198 ± 59 min;

conclusionsDipole density-guided CA is equally safe but associated with longer procedure duration compared to conventional substrate modification for treatment of recurrent persAF after previous CA. Of note, long-term arrhythmia-free survival is significantly worse after DD-guided ablation, and more patients undergo redo procedures.

Indexed as

atrial fibrillationcatheter ablationdipole densitypersistent atrial fibrillationpulmonary vein isolation

Identifiers

PMID38202230
PMCPMC10779490

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.