Cited by 18Cardiac Arrhythmias and TreatmentsAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesCardiac pacing and defibrillation studies

Radiofrequency ablation for common atrial flutter using an 8-mm tip catheter and up to 150W

HILLOCK, R, MELTON, I, CROZIER, I·2005·Europace

Abstract

The formation of bi-directional block in atrial flutter can be adversely affected by problems with the delivery of effective energy related to isthmus anatomy and contact. Higher energies can produce larger and more effective lesions. The optimum setting for power delivery using temperature controlled ablation has not been established, with the maximum reported being 100 W. This is a retrospective review of the first 50 new cases assessing the efficacy and safety of using temperature controlled (60-65 degrees C) flutter ablation with an 8mm tip electrode catheter and up to 150 W. All cases had either typical flutter alone (34%) or predominant flutter as the indication, no combined procedures were included. Acute procedural success was 94% and long-term success of 88%. Median number of ablations required was 11 (interquartile range 10-19), median procedure time 120 min (IQR 102-164), fluoroscopy time 22 min (IQR 17-36), radiation dose 17 Gy cm(2) (IQR 10-27), median number of lines 1 (IQR 1-2). Six patients achieved 150 W, but 42 achieved >100 W (median watts 142 W, IQR 104-147). Patients (12%) experienced an uncomplicated pop during the procedure. None experienced a significant complication. There were three late relapses. The setting of 150 W maximum delivered energy in temperature regulated ablation allowed higher energies (>100 W) to be delivered in most patients. This resulted in acute and long-term success rates that compare well with the literature but is associated with a 12% rate of pop. Subsequent to this series our 54th patient sustained a pop due to high energy ablation that resulted in perforation and tamponade, from which there was survival.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.eupc.2005.03.002

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
HILLOCK, R., MELTON, I., & CROZIER, I.
Affiliations
Christchurch Hospital (NZ)
Corresponding author
HILLOCK, R
Venue
Europace
Published
2005-09
Volume
7
Issue
5
Pages
409-412
ISSN
1099-5129 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2145572121
Cited by
18
References
18
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 1
FWCI
1.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • EP Europace (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Atrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Keywords
atrial flutter, radiofrequency catheter ablation, temperature-controlled ablation, procedural success, ablation complications, cardiac tamponade, atrial flutter recurrence
MeSH terms
Atrial Flutter, Electrodes, Female, Fluoroscopy, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies, Radiography, Interventional, Treatment Outcome, Coronary Angiography, Catheter Ablation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review