ArticleJournal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions2026
Transseptal Device Comparison for Improved Puncture and Streamlined Mitral Edge-To-Edge Repair.
Article in Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Septal anatomy dictates the complexity of transseptal puncture (TSP) and strongly influences left atrial access for large mitral transcatheter edge-to-edge mitral valve repair. This study aimed to compare 2 TSP needle-based techniques-mechanical needle (MN; BRK Transseptal Needle, Abbott) and radiofrequency-powered needle (RFN; NRG Transseptal Needle, Boston Scientific)-with the VersaCross Large Access system (VLA, Boston Scientific), comprising a radiofrequency wire and 12.5F transseptal introducer. Methods: This is a retrospective single-center review of consecutive MitraClip (Abbott) cases using MN (n = 28), RFN (n = 55)-both with an 8.5F sheath and pigtail exchange wire, and VLA (n = 109). Procedures were evaluated for TSP success, time to TSP, MitraClip steerable guide catheter (SGC) delivery, clip deployment, and overall procedure time. Acute adverse events were assessed. Results: The TSP was successful in 100% of cases with no adverse events. The TSP time from groin access was the shortest with VLA (MN, 26.6 ± 18.5 minutes; RFN, 21.3 ± 11.9 minutes; VLA, 15.8 ± 10.0 minutes). VLA required less time to SGC delivery from TSP (MN, 18.4 ± 12.8 minutes; RFN, 9.7 ± 5.1 minutes; VLA, 5.4 ± 4.6 minutes). There were no differences in time to clip deployment between groups. Total procedure time was the lowest with VLA (MN, 138 ± 64 minutes; RFN, 123 ± 63 minutes; VLA, 96 ± 51 minutes). TSP and SGC delivery times were more consistent using VLA than those with MN ( Conclusions: Use of VLA allowed for shorter TSP times and more efficient SGC delivery into the left atrium. The choice of transseptal technique can improve overall procedure time, leading to catheterization laboratory predictability and efficiency.
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.