ArticleJournal of arrhythmia2026
Efficacy of a Novel Ablation Index Algorithm for Cavotricuspid Isthmus Ablation Using a Flexible-Tip Ablation Catheter.
Article in Journal of arrhythmia, 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
Introduction: AutoMark Index (AI) is a novel ablation algorithm integrating contact force (CF), radiofrequency (RF) current, and application duration to provide real-time lesion formation feedback. Data of AI using a flexible-tip RF ablation catheter for cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) ablation remain limited. The objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AI-guided CTI ablation. Methods: Consecutive 148 patients undergoing CTI ablation with a CF-sensing flexible-tip ablation catheter were included. Outcomes using an AI-guided protocol (50 W, targeting AI of 50; AI-50 group, 62 patients) were compared with a conventional protocol (40 W for 20 s; 40-W group, 86 patients). Results: The first-line success rate showed no difference between the two groups (40-W group: 72/86 [84.7%] vs. AI-50 group: 51/62 [82.2%], Conclusion: AI-guided CTI ablation protocol is efficient in shortening RF duration for acute bidirectional CTI block and CTI procedure time compared to the conventional 40 W ablation protocol.
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.