Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40734742›Full record

ArticleHeart rhythm O22025

Improved procedural efficiency of atrial fibrillation ablation using robotic magnetic navigation.

Zhuhui Liu, Xianghua Li, Yue Wei, Xiang Li, Qingzhi Luo, Yun Xie, Changjian Lin, Yanxin Han, Yu Yu, Ning Zhang and 6 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Heart rhythm O2, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Zhuhui LiuDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Shanghai Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Xianghua LiDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Shanxi Sinopharm Tongmei General Hospital, Shanxi, China.
Yue WeiDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Shanghai Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Xiang LiDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Shanghai Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Qingzhi LuoDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Shanghai Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Yun XieDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Shanghai Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Changjian LinDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Shanghai Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Yanxin HanDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Shanghai Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Yu YuDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Shanghai Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Ning ZhangDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Shanghai Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Tianyou LingDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Shanghai Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Kang ChenDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Shanghai Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Wenqi PanDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Shanghai Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Yangyang BaoDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Shanghai Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Liqun WuDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Shanghai Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Qi JinDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Shanghai Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Currently, there is still a large variability in procedural efficiency of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the evolution of procedural efficiency of AF ablation using robotic magnetic navigation (RMN) and compare the most efficient approach with cryoballoon ablation (CRYO), a typical "single-shot" technique. Methods: A total of 2028 AF ablation procedures with RMN were consecutively included and divided into 3 groups based on ablation technique evolution (group 1, ablation catheter with fixed sheath, standard-power, long-duration, n = 523; group 2, steerable sheath, standard-power, long-duration, n = 994; and group 3, steerable sheath, high-power, short-duration, n = 511). For comparison, patients treated with the most efficient ablation strategy with RMN (n = 85) or CRYO (n = 85) were matched using a 1:1 propensity score and analyzed within the same period. Results: RMN group 3 was the most efficient ablation strategy with the shortest procedure time ( Conclusion: The procedural efficiency of RMN-guided AF ablation has been remarkably improved with steerable sheath and high-power, short-duration ablation. This technique is generally equivalent to CRYO with regard to procedure time and overall efficacy.

Indexed as

Atrial fibrillationCatheter ablationCryoballoon ablationHigh-powerRobotic magnetic navigationshort-duration

Identifiers

PMID40734742
PMCPMC12302197

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.