ArticleAnatolian journal of cardiology2024
Extra-Cavity Image Registration via the Aortic Root During Left Ventricular Mapping and Ablation.
Article in Anatolian journal of cardiology, 2024. 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, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundComputed tomography (CT) image integration is of limited use in left ventricular (LV) ablation due to inadequate accuracy of registration. The current study aimed to investigate the accuracy and feasibility of extra-cavity LV image registration via the coronary cusp.
methodsConsecutive patients were enrolled as the validation group (n = 41) and feasibility group (n = 48). After extra-cavity registration via the aortic root, the LV anatomy derived from CT image was activated and moved into real space. Accuracy of LV anatomy via this registration method was verified by intracardiac echocardiography reconstruction in the validation group and tested further in the feasibility group via measuring the location differences (<3 mm) and volume difference (<8 mL).
resultsIn validation group, the LV volume of CT image and ICE map were comparable (113.6 ± 15.5 mL vs. 109.0 ± 15.3 mL, P =.27), and the location difference was 3.1 ± 1.1 mm at LV summit, 1.8 ± 0.9 mm at the free wall, and 1.8 ± 0.7 mm at the LV apex. There was a mean of 2.9 ± 1.2 mm and 3.0 ± 1.0 mm length difference in anterior PM and posterior PM, the position difference of the PM's base was 2.8 ± 0.9 mm for anterior PM and 2.2 ± 0.9 mm for posterior PM. In feasibility group, the distance differences of LV summit, LV septum, LV apex, and LV free averaged 1.8 ± 0.8 mm, 1.5 ± 0.7 mm, 1.4 ± 0.6 mm, 1.3 ± 0.7 mm, respectively. Compared with validation group, acute success (100% vs. 96.5%, P =.51), complications rate (4.9% vs. 2.0%, P = 0.59) and fluoroscopic time (1.6 ± 1.1 vs. 1.9 ± 1.6 minutes, P =.30) exhibited no significant difference, but was significantly reduced with procedure time (74.5 ± 8.1 vs. 61.2 ± 9.5 minutes, P <.001) with CT image registration only.
conclusionLV mapping and ablation could be successfully achieved by extra-cavity registration via coronary cusp without needing positions within LV beforehand.
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.