ArticleHeart rhythm O22026
Contact-force-sensing-based radiofrequency catheter ablation in paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardias: A randomized controlled trial.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04078685 (Contact-Force-Sensing-Based Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation in Paroxysmal Supraventricular Tachycardias), 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.
Contact-Force-Sensing-Based Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation in Paroxysmal Supraventricular Tachycardias: a Randomized Controlled Trial
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
Background: Although contact-force (CF) technology has gained traction in atrial fibrillation ablation, limited data exist regarding its utility in supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) ablation. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate whether CF-sensing catheter ablation offers procedural advantages over conventional ablation for treatment of SVT by comparing the number of radiofrequency (RF) applications and assessing safety, efficacy, and long-term outcomes. Method: In this randomized controlled trial, patients with SVT (atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia/atrioventricular reentrant tachycardia) were assigned to either CF-sensing or conventional ablation. The primary end point was the total number of RF applications. Secondary endpoints included RF time, fluoroscopy time, procedural duration, acute and long-term success, and adverse events. Follow-up included electrocardiograms at 3 and 12 months, with Holter monitoring if symptoms recurred. Results: A total of 107 patients with SVT (mean age 49.4 ± 14.7 years; 47.7% male) were assigned to CF-sensing (n = 54) or conventional ablation (n = 53). Acute procedural success was achieved in 98.1% of patients in both arms. The median number of RF applications did not differ significantly between CF (3.5 [1.8-8.3]) and control groups (4.0 [2.0-11.0]; Conclusion: CF-sensing catheter ablation did not reduce the number of applications or improve procedural metrics in SVT ablation. Both CF and conventional ablation demonstrated high efficacy and comparable safety profiles. Clinical trial registration: NCT04078685.
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.