ArticleKorean circulation journal2022
Clinical Usefulness of Virtual Ablation Guided Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation Targeting Restitution Parameter-Guided Catheter Ablation: CUVIA-REGAB Prospective Randomized Study.
Article in Korean circulation journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02558699 (Clinical Usefulness of Virtual Ablation Guided Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
Clinical Usefulness of Virtual Ablation Guided Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation: Virtual Rotor Mapping and Catheter Ablation
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical usefulness of digital twin guided virtual amiodarone test in patients with atrial fibrillation ablation.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Article
- Anti- and pro-fibrillatory effects of pulmonary vein isolation gaps in human atrial fibrillation digital twins.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Article
- Comparison of the 11-Day Adhesive ECG Patch Monitor and 24-h Holter Tests to Assess the Response to Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy in Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Virtual Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: An Unexplored Niche.Korean circulation journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesWe investigated whether extra-pulmonary vein (PV) ablation targeting a high maximal slope of the action potential duration restitution curve (Smax) improves the rhythm outcome of persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF) ablation.
methodsIn this open-label, multi-center, randomized, and controlled trial, 178 PeAF patients were randomized with 1:1 ratio to computational modeling-guided virtual Smax ablation (V-Smax) or empirical ablation (E-ABL) groups. Smax maps were generated by computational modeling based on atrial substrate maps acquired during clinical procedures in sinus rhythm. Smax maps were generated during the clinical PV isolation (PVI). The V-Smax group underwent an additional extra-PV ablation after PVI targeting the virtual high Smax sites.
resultsAfter a mean follow-up period of 12.3±5.2 months, the clinical recurrence rates (25.6% vs. 23.9% in the V-Smax and the E-ABL group, p=0.880) or recurrence appearing as atrial tachycardia (11.1% vs. 5.7%, p=0.169) did not differ between the 2 groups. The post-ablation cardioversion rate was higher in the V-Smax group than E-ABL group (14.4% vs. 5.7%, p=0.027). Among antiarrhythmic drug-free patients (n=129), the AF freedom rate was 78.7% in the V-Smax group and 80.9% in the E-ABL group (p=0.776). The total procedure time was longer in the V-Smax group (p=0.008), but no significant difference was found in the major complication rates (p=0.497) between the groups.
conclusionsUnlike a dominant frequency ablation, the computational modeling-guided V-Smax ablation did not improve the rhythm outcome of the PeAF ablation and had a longer procedure time.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02558699.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.