Trial reportJournal of cardiovascular electrophysiology2024
Lesion monitoring parameters as predictors of atrial arrhythmia recurrence after catheter ablation in persistent AF: A DECAAF II sub-analysis.
Trial report in Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology, 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.
- Lesion monitoring parameters as predictors of atrial arrhythmia recurrence after catheter ablation in persistent AF: A DECAAF II sub-analysis.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2024Trial
- Article
- Comparison of Cryoballoon and Ablation Index-Guided Radiofrequency Ablation in Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation.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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe formation of transmural lesions is necessary for the ablation of persistent atrial fibrillation (prAF). Ablation index (AI) and generator impedance drop (ID) predict lesion size but their correlation with long-term outcomes in prAF is not known. Furthermore, we proposed a new parameter, efficacy ratio (ER) calculated as ID/AI, to gain indirect insight into the role of factors affecting ID but not considered by AI.
methodsWe included ablations performed during the DECAAF II trial if they had uploaded lesion-by-lesion summary data and were performed with radiofrequency catheters on the CARTO system. Average patient-level parameters were calculated from all generated Vizitags.
resultsA total of 427 ablations met inclusion criteria and 166 utilized AI. Analyzed as continuous variables, ID and ER predicted long-term arrhythmia-free survival but not AI. The ideal cut-off for ID was ID ≥ 10.4 ohms and had a C-index of 0.55. It predicted reduced risk of arrhythmia: hazard ratio 0.56 [0.36-0.88], p = .013 (arrhythmia-free survival of 67% vs. 52%). Similarly, an ER of 1.7 ohms/100AI had a C-index of 0.58 and predicted reduced arrhythmia recurrence: HR 0.39 [0.22-0.69], p = .001. ER < 1.7 ohms/100AI was related to just 32% arrhythmia-free survival. ER improved prognostication as compared to ID alone and identified a subset of low ID patients with even worse outcomes.
conclusionAverage ID was predictive of improved outcomes following ablation of prAF. The ratio of ID/AI (ER) was postulated as a measure to summarize the overall impact of factors not considered in the AI formula and provided improved prognostication.
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.