Trial reportEuropace : 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
Lattice-tip vs. standard irrigated focal-tip catheter for radiofrequency ablation of the cavotricuspid isthmus - the LINEAR randomized trial.
Trial report 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. It is linked to trial NCT07078760 (Lattice-tip Versus Irrigated-tip Catheter for Linear Ablation of the Cavotricuspid Isthmus. A Multicenter, Randomized Study.), 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.
Lattice-tip Versus Irrigated-tip Catheter for Linear Ablation of the Cavotricuspid Isthmus. A Multicenter, Randomized Study. (The LINEAR Study)
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsCavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) ablation is a cornerstone therapy for typical atrial flutter (AFl) and is commonly performed during atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. In this multicentre randomized trial, we compared a lattice-tip catheter with an irrigated focal-tip catheter for radiofrequency CTI ablation (LINEAR study-ClinicalTrials.gov NCT07078760). METHODS AND
resultsPatients were randomized to a lattice-tip, dual-energy catheter (lattice-tip group) or to a standard 3.5-mm irrigated radiofrequency catheter (standard group) in two centres. In the lattice-tip group, only radiofrequency was utilized. The primary endpoint was the achievement and persistence of bidirectional CTI block after a 60-minute waiting period, confirmed by high-density electroanatomical mapping and adenosine testing. Secondary endpoints included the rate of first-pass block, the number of lesions, and the ablation time. Procedural complications were recorded. In total, 102 patients were randomized. The primary endpoint was achieved in significantly more patients in the lattice-tip as compared to the standard group (94.1% vs. 68.6%, P = 0.002). The lattice-tip catheter resulted in a significantly higher rate of first-pass block (90.2% vs. 60.8%, P = 0.001). CTI block required significantly shorter ablation time (41.3 ± 12.1 vs. 245.3 ± 91.3 s, P < 0.001) and a significantly lower number of lesions (8.3 ± 2.4 vs. 13.4 ± 4.5, P < 0.001) in the lattice-tip as compared to the standard group. No procedural complications were documented.
conclusionThe lattice tip catheter resulted in higher acute procedural success for radiofrequency CTI ablation compared to the standard irrigated focal-tip catheter. Future studies are needed to assess long-term efficacy and clinical outcomes.
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.