ArticleEuropean heart journal open2026
Oesophageal safety of high and very high power short duration pulmonary vein isolation: a randomized comparison of the 50 W and 90 W power settings-the HPSD oesophagus study.
Article in European heart journal open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06617442 (Esophageal Safety of High and Very High Power Short Duration Pulmonary Vein Isolation), which is not on this 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.
Esophageal Safety of High and Very High Power Short Duration Pulmonary Vein Isolation: a Randomized Comparison of the 50W and 90W Power Settings
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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Point-by-point radiofrequency catheter ablation is commonly used for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in atrial fibrillation (AF). Very high power short duration (vHPSD) technology offers similar efficacy to high power short duration (HPSD) with reduced procedure times. A major complication of thermal ablation is atrio-oesophageal fistula (AEF), with oesophageal lesions and gastroparesis indicating increased risk. A direct comparison of HPSD and vHPSD regarding thermal safety is lacking. This randomized, single-centre study aimed to compare the thermal safety of vHPSD to HPSD and identify anatomical and biophysical predictors of thermal injury (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT06617442). Methods and results: Patients undergoing first-time PVI for AF were randomized to either HPSD (50 W) or vHPSD (90 W). The study followed a non-inferiority design, with the primary endpoint being a composite of oesophageal mucosal lesion and gastroparesis, assessed via endoscopy within 15 days post-procedure. Pre-procedural computed tomography scans were analysed for anatomical risk factors. Among 100 patients (50 per group), the primary endpoint occurred in 7 (14%) of the vHPSD group and 6 (12%) of the HPSD group (estimated mean difference -2%, lower bound of one-sided 95% CI -0.13), confirming non-inferiority. A smaller inter-lesion distance on the posterior wall was associated with increased risk (3.76 mm vs. 4.16 mm, Conclusion: Pulmonary vein isolation using 90 W (vHPSD) applications was non-inferior to the 50 W (HPSD) power setting in terms of oesophageal safety. A smaller inter-lesion distance on the posterior wall was predictive of oesophageal injury.
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.