ArticleBMC geriatrics2025
Comparison of high-power single-ring isolation and box isolation in elderly patients with persistent atrial fibrillation.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2025. 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.
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study evaluated the superiority of single-ring isolation (SRI) over box isolation using high power in elderly patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF).
methodsWe retrospectively studied elderly patients with PeAF who underwent primary catheter ablation. The patients were divided into the SRI group and the posterior box isolation (BOXI) group. Basic characteristics, procedural variables, complications and atrial arrhythmia recurrence rates were collected.
resultsForty-five pairs of patients in the two groups were matched by 1:1 PSM. Compared with that in the BOXI group, the total procedure time in the SRI group was not significantly different (P = 0.340). However, there were significant reductions in the total ablation time, ring ablation lesions and number of lesions on the posterior wall in patients who underwent SRI compared to those who underwent BOXI (all P < 0.001). The cardiac troponin level in the SRI group was significantly lower (P = 0.023). There were significantly fewer mismatched three-dimensional mapping models and mismatched models per patient due to pain-induced movement in the SRI group (all P < 0.05). The questionnaires revealed that the pain score was significantly lower in the SRI group than in the BOXI group (P < 0.001). In addition, significantly fewer patients with SRI than with BOXI experienced gastrointestinal symptoms after the procedure (15.56% vs. 37.78%, P = 0.017). K‒M analysis revealed no significant difference in atrial arrhythmia-free survival at 12 months between the SRI and BOXI patients (P > 0.05).
conclusionsHigh-power SRI is safe and feasible and may be superior to the BOXI for experience of elderly patients with PeAF.
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.