ArticleJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2024
Local impedance drop-guided versus lesion size index-guided pulmonary vein isolation.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Prediction of Ablation Index and Lesion Size Index for Local Impedance Drop-Guided Ablation.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLocal tissue impedance drop (LID) and lesion size index (LSI) technologies are valuable for predicting effective lesion formation. This study compares the acute and long-term efficacy of LID-guided versus LSI-guided pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) for atrial fibrillation treatment.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed two patient groups undergoing radiofrequency PVI. In the LID-guided group (n = 35), ablation was performed without contact force monitoring, stopping at the LID plateau (target LID 12 Ohm posterior, 16 Ohm anterior). In the LSI-guided group (n = 31), ablation used contact force information with target LSI (5 anterior, 4 posterior). Both groups utilized a power of 40 W anterior and 30 W posterior, with < 6 mm inter-lesion distance. Gap mapping and touch-up ablation were done if necessary.
resultsPVI was achieved with a significantly shorter ablation time in the LSI-guided group (25 min [21;31] vs 30 [27;35], p = 0.035). PV gaps were more frequent in the LID-guided group (74% vs 42%, p = 0.016). Over 11.5 ± 2.9 months follow-up, arrhythmia recurrence was higher in the LID-guided group (34.3% vs 16.1%, p = 0.037). A redo procedure performed in 10 (28.6%) patients in the LID-guided group and 3 (9.7%) in the LSI-guided group showed chronic PV reconnections in 7 out of 10 (70%) and 2 out of 3 (67%) patients, respectively.
conclusionsLSI-guided ablation results in shorter ablation time and fewer PV gaps compared to LID-guided ablation. Despite initial success, LID-guided ablation had higher arrhythmia recurrence and PV reconnections during long-term follow-up compared to LSI-guided ablation.
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.