ArticlePediatric cardiology2026
Impact of Irrigated Contact-Force Sensing on Fluoroscopy Exposure and Efficiency in Pediatric AVNRT Ablation.
Article in Pediatric cardiology, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT) is one of the most common forms of supraventricular tachycardia in children and adolescents. Radiofrequency (RF) catheter ablation is an established and effective treatment; however, the close anatomical relationship between the slow pathway and the compact atrioventricular (AV) node poses a risk of conduction system injury. Irrigated contact-force (CF) sensing catheters provide real-time feedback on catheter-tissue interaction and may enhance lesion delivery and procedural efficiency. Despite increasing use in adult populations, data regarding their use in pediatric AVNRT remain limited. To evaluate the safety, efficacy, and procedural characteristics of CF-guided RF ablation versus conventional non-contact-force (non-CF) catheters in pediatric patients undergoing slow-pathway modification for AVNRT. This retrospective study included consecutive pediatric patients (< 18 years) who underwent AVNRT ablation between January 2021 and December 2024. Patients were treated using either an irrigated CF-sensing catheter (n = 130) or a non-CF catheter (n = 48). Continuous variables were analyzed according to their distribution, and appropriate statistical tests were applied. Time-to-recurrence was assessed using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with log-rank testing. The CF group demonstrated significantly shorter procedure time (median 58 vs. 90 min; p < 0.001), less frequent fluoroscopy use (1.5% vs. 14.6%; p = 0.002), and shorter RF duration (73 vs. 89.5 s; p = 0.024) compared with the non-CF group. Acute procedural success was achieved in all patients in the CF group and in 89.6% of patients in the non-CF group (p = 0.001). No major complications were observed in either group. Recurrence rates were numerically higher in the CF group (6.1% vs. 2.1%; p = 0.448). Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated a statistically significant difference in recurrence-free survival (log-rank p = 0.015); however, this finding should be interpreted cautiously due to differences in follow-up duration and the limited number of events. Irrigated CF-guided RF ablation appears to be a safe and effective option for the treatment of pediatric AVNRT. CF-guided ablation was associated with improved procedural efficiency and high acute success. Differences in recurrence patterns should be interpreted cautiously in light of potential confounding factors, including follow-up duration and temporal learning effects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42257767What 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.