ArticleJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2026
Comparison of very high-power short-duration and ablation index guided catheter ablation for cavotricuspid isthmus block.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCatheter ablation for the treatment of typical atrial flutter (AFL) provides effective and durable cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) block associated with encouraging clinical outcome. Safety and efficacy of very high-power short-duration (vHPSD) temperature-controlled radiofrequency (RF) CTI ablation with 90 watts over 4 s (90 W/4 s) for typical AFL in comparison to conventional contact-force (CF) ablation-index (AI) guided ablation remains insufficiently investigated.
methodsThis single-center observational cohort study based on prospectively collected registry data included 100 consecutive patients undergoing CTI ablation for symptomatic typical AFL, with 50 patients treated using a vHPSD strategy (vHPSD-group) and 50 patients using an AI-guided ablation approach (AI-group).
resultsAll CTIs were successfully blocked using either method. Median RF applications and RF times in the vHPSD-group and AI-group were 36 [IQR 26;47] versus 18 [IQR 12;26], p < 0.001 and 142 s [IQR 105;189 s] versus 574 s [IQR 401;983], p < 0.001, respectively. No differences in periprocedural complications were observed. Recurrence of AFL after 12 months was low with no significant differences between groups (2% vs. 2%, p = 1). In patients with re-ablation there was no difference in CTI block durability between both groups (75% vHPSD-group versus 67% AI-group, p = 0.809).
conclusionsVery HPSD ablation (90 W/4 s) is a safe and effective strategy for CTI ablation, offering the advantage of markedly shorter CTI RF application times compared with AI-guided ablation. Rates of periprocedural complications, acute and durable CTI block, and long-term arrhythmia recurrence are similar between the two approaches. We compared very high-power short-duration (vHPSD, 90 W/4 s) versus ablation-index-guided cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) ablation in typical atrial flutter. Acute bidirectional CTI block was achieved in all patients. vHPSD significantly reduced CTI radiofrequency time without increased complications and showed similarly low recurrence and CTI block durability at 12 months.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41999464What 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.