ArticleEuropace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology2026
Ablation of atrial fibrillation sources identified through sequential high-density mapping: in silico comparison against anatomy-based approaches.
Article in Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Role of interatrial connection ablation in re-entry dynamics: an in silico evaluation.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2026Article
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
Abstract
aimsPulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is the cornerstone of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation, but recurrences are frequent. Ablating AF sources beyond PVI may prevent re-initiations. This proof-of-principle in silico study compares a novel source-based ablation approach to conventional strategies in preventing AF re-initiation. METHODS AND
resultsWe compared two conventional ablation strategies [PVI and PVI + posterior wall isolation (box ablation)] with our source-based approach. After PVI, a high-density mapping catheter was guided sequentially upstream of local repetitive conduction patterns until a source was identified. Located targets were ablated, connecting them to non-conducting boundaries. Strategies were compared based on their AF re-initiation rates after incremental pacing and ablated and electrically isolated areas. Analyses were performed in seven different scenarios with atria of different sizes, without (n = 3) and with fibrosis (n = 4), to assess different AF progression stages. Compared to no ablation, PVI reduced initiation rates in non-fibrotic atria (23 ± 8% control vs. 15 ± 0% PVI) but was less effective with fibrosis (60 ± 4% vs. 53 ± 10%). Box ablation was not superior to PVI while isolating more of the left atrium (isolated area in PVI: 31.5 ± 0.7% vs. box: 43.6 ± 0.5%). Conversely, source ablation completely prevented AF initiation in all scenarios, achieving comparable left atrial isolation with box ablation (isolated area without fibrosis: 36.3 ± 1.4%; with fibrosis: 43.2 ± 2.6%) and including right atrial lesions. Although macro-re-entrant tachycardias occurred frequently after source ablation, they were terminated with minimal lesions.
conclusionAblating AF sources using our high-density mapping approach was more efficient in preventing AF re-initiation in silico than anatomy-based strategies.
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.