Cited by 25Cardiac Arrhythmias and TreatmentsAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias

Radiofrequency Ablation of Atrial Flutter: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Two Anatomic Approaches

Passman, Rod S., Kadish, Alan H., Dibs, Samer R., Engelstein, Erica D., Goldberger, Jeffrey J.·2004·Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology

Abstract

Atrial flutter often results from a macroreentrant circuit that uses anatomic structures within the right atrium as its borders. RF ablation at the site of an obligatory isthmus can eliminate the atrial flutter circuit. The aim of this study was to compare two approaches to atrial flutter ablation: the septal (septal aspect of the tricuspid valve annulus to coronary sinus ostium and Eustachian ridge) approach versus the posterior (inferior vena cava to tricuspid valve annulus) approach. Twenty patients were randomized to either the "septal" or "posterior" approach. Entrainment mapping and/or confirmation of bidirectional isthmus conduction at baseline were performed in those patients in atrial flutter and normal sinus rhythm, respectively. RF ablation was performed with standard catheters and techniques. Crossover was permitted after two lines of RF lesions. Endpoints included acute success rates and fluoroscopy times. There was no statistically significant difference in the success rate between the two approaches using intention-to-treat analysis. Fluoroscopy times in the septal versus posterior approaches were 58.4 +/- 30.3 versus 70.8 +/- 31.1 minutes, respectively (P = 0.7). There was more frequent crossover in patients assigned to the septal approach and the one major complication, atrioventricular block, also occurred using this approach. There was no statistically significant difference in the success rate or fluoroscopy times between the septal and posterior approaches to atrial flutter ablation. However, given the risk of atrioventricular block with the septal approach, the posterior approach should be the preferred initial choice.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2004.00390.x

Cites

28 of 28 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
Passman, R. S., Kadish, A. H., Dibs, S. R., Engelstein, E. D., & Goldberger, J. J.
Affiliations
Northwestern University (US)
Corresponding author
Passman, Rod S.
Venue
Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-01
Volume
27
Issue
1
Pages
83-88
ISSN
  • 0147-8389 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-8159
OpenAlex
W1524497297
Cited by
24
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5k23hl068814-05)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (1 K23 HL68814-01)
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
atrial flutter, radiofrequency catheter ablation, posterior approach, bidirectional block, atrioventricular block, fluoroscopy time, ablation success rate
MeSH terms
Atrial Flutter, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, 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