ArticleJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2026
Procedural outcomes of single versus double transeptal access for ablation of atrial fibrillation: Data from the NCDR Afib ablation registry.
Article in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2026. 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe transeptal puncture (TSP) is an obligatory step during catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF). There is no consensus regarding the utility for a single or double transeptal (TSP) access for CA of AF.
objectiveTo evaluate procedural outcomes and in-hospital complications (death, cardiovascular, neurological, peripheral vascular and pulmonary events) associated with CA of AF in patients undergoing single versus double TSP puncture using the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR).
methodsClinical characteristics and procedural outcomes of patients undergoing CA for AF between 2016 and 2024 were evaluated. Inverse probability of Treatment Weighting (IPTW) analysis was developed to adjust for confounding variables between TSP groups.
resultsA total of 212,345 patients were identified. Among patients with paroxysmal AF (PAF) and non-paroxysmal AF (NPAF), single TSP was associated with comparable but lower risk of total procedural complications (PAF: 1.47% vs. 1.73%, OR:0.91, 0.88–0.93), (NPAF: 2.09% vs. 2.58%, OR:0.77 0.72–0.82), hospitalization > 1 day (PAF: 7.15% vs. 7.92%, OR:0.90, 0.87- 0.93), (NPAF: 10.41% vs. 12.13%, OR:0.84, 0.81–0.86) and a similar but higher likelihood of discharge in sinus rhythm (PAF: 95.55% vs. 95.17%, OR:1.09, 1.05–1.14) (NPAF: 93.37% vs. 92.31%, OR:1.17, 1.13–1.22) compared to double TSP technique. The incidence of stroke or TIA was not different between TSP groups.
conclusionIn a large AF ablation registry, single and double TSP use had similar procedural safety, and comparable likelihood of discharge in sinus rhythm. Single TSP use was not associated with embolism or cerebrovascular events. Operator preference and patient characteristics should be taken into consideration to define optimal TSP strategy.
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.