ReviewArrhythmia & electrophysiology review2025
Temperature-controlled Ablation Versus Conventional Ablation for Pulmonary Vein Isolation in the Treatment of AF: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Arrhythmia & electrophysiology review, 2025. 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.
- The Biophysics of Radiofrequency Ablation and Factors Affecting Lesion Size.Arrhythmia & electrophysiology review · 2026Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study compared the efficacy and safety of temperature-controlled and conventional contact-force-sensing radiofrequency ablation catheters for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in AF. Methods: Seven studies (1,138 patients) were included. Randomised controlled trials and observational (single-arm and two-arm) studies that reported freedom from AF ≥3 months after PVI with temperature-controlled radiofrequency ablation catheters (Biosense Webster QDOT MICRO operating in QMODE or Medtronic DiamondTemp) were included. Results: Freedom from AF at a mean (± SD) follow-up of 9.0 ± 3.6 months did not differ significantly between temperature-controlled and conventional ablation (OR 1.22; 95% CI [-0.79, 1.64]; p=0.24). Total procedure duration (-13.5 minutes; 95% CI [-17.1, -10.0 minutes]; p<0.001) and total ablation duration (-8.9 min; 95% CI [-10.3, -7.5 min]; p<0.01) were significantly shorter for temperature-controlled ablation. There were no significant differences between temperature-controlled and conventional ablation in either the aggregated rates of procedural complications (OR 0.69; 95% CI [-0.15, 1.54]; p=0.11) or in the rate of any individual complication. Conclusion: Temperature-controlled ablation was found to be at least non-inferior to conventional ablation in all measures of efficacy and safety. Further randomised controlled trials are warranted to evaluate long-term rates of freedom from AF and patient comfort.
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.