ArticleJournal of arrhythmia2025
Extra-cardiac vagal stimulation: Clinical utility of a novel diagnostic and therapeutic tool in supraventricular tachycardia.
Article in Journal of arrhythmia, 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.
- Extra-cardiac vagal stimulation: Clinical utility of a novel diagnostic and therapeutic tool in supraventricular tachycardia.Journal of arrhythmia · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The differential diagnosis of supraventricular tachycardias (SVTs) is essential during radiofrequency-(RF) ablation. The extracardiac vagal stimulation (ECVS), introduced in 2015, offers new insights for electrophysiological studies and ablation, allowing controlled cardiac vagal effect. Methods: Prospective study of 625 SVT ablation patients. ECVS was performed using a regular electrophysiology catheter to study atrioventricular (AV) and ventriculo-atrial (VA) conduction and their effects on tachycardia. Baseline ECVS was performed to determine the optimal position for right or left ECVS, near the jugular foramen. ECVS was repeated during atrial and ventricular pacing (VP) to monitor the procedure's progression and ensure successful endpoints. Results: ECVS was successful in 611/625 patients (98%), 381 (62.3%) had AV node reentry tachycardia-(AVNRT), and 230 (37.6%) accessory pathway (AP), including 135-(58.7%) anterograde AP (WPW) and 95 (41.3%) concealed AP. ECVS + VP in 33 patients with atypical AVNRT yielded VA block in 32-(97%), suggesting VA conduction solely via the AV node. In contrast, 57 patients with concealed para-septal AP maintained VA conduction during ECVS, confirming AP. ECVS proved to be a fast, reliable, and practical additional EP tool: VA block indicated AVNRT, while persistent VA conduction suggested AP. Additionally, ECVS was highly effective in revealing and confirming successful AP ablation by demonstrating the absence of AV and VA anomalous conduction. Conclusion: ECVS was a valuable tool in the diagnosis and ablation of SVTs. It allowed reproducible AV and VA block through normal pathways, easily identifying AVNRT and concealed, intermittent, or subtle AP. It was particularly useful in complex cases involving concealed AP and atypical AVNRT tachycardia.
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.