ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Intracardiac echocardiography guided zero-fluoroscopy workflow versus conventional fluoroscopy-guided workflow in atrial fibrillation ablation: efficiency, safety, and operator experience.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Intracardiac echocardiography (ICE)-guided Zero-Fluoroscopy Workflow Group has been described in the literature. However, robust evidence simultaneously addressing procedural safety, efficiency, and operator experience remains limited. This study aims to systematically evaluate the procedural efficacy, intraoperative safety, and impact on operator experience of this technique. Objective: To compare the ICE-guided Zero-Fluoroscopy Workflow with Conventional fluoroscopy-guided workflow in the context of radiofrequency catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF), and to quantify the effect of zero-fluoroscopy mode on operator workload and comfort. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted enrolling 177 patients who underwent radiofrequency catheter ablation for AF at Ningbo No. 2 Hospital between December, 2023 and June, 2026. Patients were divided into the ICE-Guided Zero-Fluoroscopy Workflow Group and the Conventional fluoroscopy-guided workflow Group. Operator subjective experience was assessed using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for physical fatigue and procedural comfort immediately after each procedure. Total procedure time, TSP time, procedural success rate, and intraprocedural complications were also compared between groups. Results: Operator post-procedural VAS scores for physical fatigue (1.1 ± 0.6 vs. 6.8 ± 1.9) and procedural comfort (1.3 ± 0.7 vs. 7.2 ± 1.8) were significantly lower in the ICE-Guided Zero-Fluoroscopy Workflow Group compared to the Conventional fluoroscopy-guided workflow Group (both Conclusion: In this retrospective single-center study, an ICE-guided zero-fluoroscopy workflow for AF ablation was feasible and demonstrated similar procedural efficiency to a conventional fluoroscopy-guided workflow. The zero-fluoroscopy strategy was not associated with an observed increase in acute complications in this cohort. In addition, it was associated with substantially lower operator-reported fatigue and discomfort, likely reflecting the absence of lead apron use. These findings support further prospective evaluation of ICE-guided zero-fluoroscopy workflows as a potentially valuable strategy for balancing procedural performance and operator occupational health.
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.