Cited by 33Cardiac Arrhythmias and TreatmentsAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias

Randomized comparison of two targets in typical atrial flutter ablation

Anselme, Frédéric, Klug, Didier, Scanu, Patrice, Poty, Hervé, Lacroix, Dominique, Kacet, Salem, Cribier, Alain, Saoudi, Nadir·2000·The American Journal of Cardiology

Abstract

Typical atrial flutter ablation has become anatomically guided to 2 separate sites within the isthmus at the inferior right atrium: (1) between the inferior vena cava and the tricuspid annulus (anterior side of the isthmus [A]), (2) between the eustachian crest, the coronary sinus ostium and tricuspid annulus (posterior side of the isthmus [P]). We prospectively compared ablation results at these sites in 72 consecutive patients. Patients were randomized in group P or A according to the initial target site. If ablation failed at 1 site after 15 radiofrequency (RF) pulses, the other side of the isthmus was targeted. Before 15 RF pulses, complete bidirectional isthmus block was achieved in 30 of 36 group A patients and in 25 of 36 group P patients, with similar mean RF pulses number, procedure time, and fluoroscopy time. After shifting to the other target, success was finally obtained at P in 2 of 6 group A patients, and at A in 8 of 11 group P patients before a maximum of 30 RF pulses. Among successful patients, number of RF pulses, procedure time, and fluoroscopy time were significantly lower in group A (7.2 +/- 5.4 vs 11.0 +/- 8.1 pulses, p = 0.03; 131 +/- 44 vs 163 +/- 66 minutes, p = 0.03; 31 +/- 19 vs 46 +/- 24 minutes, p = 0.01, respectively). Impairment of atrioventricular (AV) nodal conduction occurred in 5 patients only during ablation at P. AV block was transient in 4 patients and permanent in 1. Although atrial flutter ablation is equally effective at P and A, success seems easier to obtain when A is first targeted. Ablation at P is associated with a significant risk of AV block.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0002-9149(00)00760-8

Cites

24 of 24 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
Anselme, F., Klug, D., Scanu, P., Poty, H., Lacroix, D., Kacet, S., Cribier, A., & Saoudi, N.
Affiliations
  • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Rouen (FR)
  • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Lille (FR)
  • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Caen Normandie (FR)
Corresponding author
Saoudi, Nadir
Venue
The American Journal of Cardiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2000-06
Volume
85
Issue
11
Pages
1302-1307
ISSN
0002-9149 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2010273816
Cited by
33
References
24
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
0.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The American Journal of Cardiology (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 electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Keywords
typical atrial flutter, catheter ablation, isthmus ablation, bidirectional block, radiofrequency ablation, atrioventricular block, procedural success
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Atrial Flutter, Electrocardiography, Female, Heart Atria, Heart Block, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Postoperative Complications, Prospective Studies, Recurrence, Reoperation, Treatment Outcome, 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