ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2026
High-density mapping guided the modified box and driver ablation for non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: a retrospective single-center study.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFor patients with non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF), the necessity of linear ablation remains uncertain, and the benefits of posterior wall BOX isolation continue to be controversial. Recent evidence has demonstrated positive effects of driver ablation. Therefore, we designed a novel strategy termed modified posterior wall BOX isolation (m-BOX, roof line and inferior line along coronary sinus projection to connect pulmonary veins), and hybrid m-BOX and driver ablation (HOT).
objectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of high-density mapping-guided m-BOX or HOT in patients with non-paroxysmal AF.
methodsThe study is retrospective, non-randomized, and single center. A total of 148 patients who underwent HOT and 113 patients who underwent m-BOX ablation were included in the study. All patients were scheduled for a 12-month follow-up after the procedure. Recurrence was defined as AF, atrial tachycardia, or atrial flutter lasting ≥ 30 s after the blanking period.
resultsThe HOT group exhibited a statistically lower 12-month recurrence rate compared to the m-BOX group (21.8% vs. 34.8%, HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.30-0.80; P = 0.005). Among patients in the HOT group, those in whom sinus rhythm (SR) was restored by ablation demonstrated a numerically lower recurrence rate compared to those without SR restoration (16.7% vs. 26.7%, HR [95% CI]:0.60 [0.28-1.28]; P = 0.37). Irrespective of the ablation strategy, restoration of SR by ablation was associated with a lower recurrence rate (16.2% vs. 34.4%, HR [95% CI]:0.43 [0.24-0.76]; P = 0.01).
conclusionCompared to those receiving m-BOX ablation, patients who underwent HOT ablation were associated with lower recurrence.
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.