Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 507

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Lower Incidence of Thrombus Formation With Cryoenergy Versus Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation

Khairy, Paul, Chauvet, Patrick, Lehmann, John, Lambert, Jean, Macle, Laurent, Tanguay, Jean-François, Sirois, Martin G., Santoianni, Domenic, Dubuc, Marc·2003·Circulation

Abstract

Background— Radiofrequency (RF) catheter ablation is limited by thromboembolic complications. The objective of this study was to compare the incidence and characteristics of thrombi complicating RF and cryoenergy ablation, a novel technology for the catheter-based treatment of arrhythmias. Methods and Results— Ablation lesions (n=197) were performed in 22 mongrel dogs at right atrial, right ventricular, and left ventricular sites preselected by a randomized factorial design devised to compare RF ablation with cryocatheter configurations of varying sizes (7F and 9F), cooling rates (−1°C/s, −5°C/s, and −20°C/s) and target temperatures (−55°C and −75°C). Animals were pretreated with acetylsalicylic acid and received intraprocedural intravenous unfractionated heparin. Seven days after ablation, the incidence of thrombus formation was significantly higher with RF than with cryoablation (75.8% versus 30.1%, P =0.0005). In a multiple regression model, RF energy remained an independent predictor of thrombus formation compared with cryoenergy (OR, 5.6; 95% CI, 1.7, 18.1; P =0.0042). Thrombus volume was also significantly greater with RF than with cryoablation (median, 2.8 versus 0.0 mm 3 ; P <0.0001). More voluminous thrombi were associated with larger RF lesions, but cryolesion dimensions were not predictive of thrombus size. Conclusions— RF energy is significantly more thrombogenic than cryoenergy, with a higher incidence of thrombus formation and larger thrombus volumes. The extent of hyperthermic tissue injury is positively correlated with thrombus bulk, whereas cryoenergy lesion size does not predict thrombus volume, most likely reflecting intact tissue ultrastructure with endothelial cell preservation.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/01.cir.0000058706.82623.a1

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 507

Metadata

Authors
Khairy, P., Chauvet, P., Lehmann, J., Lambert, J., Macle, L., Tanguay, J.-F., Sirois, M. G., Santoianni, D., & Dubuc, M.
Venue
Circulation
Published
2003-04-22
Volume
107
Issue
15
Pages
2045-2050
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2009802093
Cited by
507
References
0
FWCI
14.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Lower Incidence of Thrombus Formation With Cryoenergy Versus Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.cir.0000058706.82623.a1
The paper
Khairy, P., Chauvet, P., Lehmann, J., Lambert, J., Macle, L., Tanguay, J.-F., Sirois, M. G., Santoianni, D., & Dubuc, M. (2003). Lower Incidence of Thrombus Formation With Cryoenergy Versus Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.0000058706.82623.a1

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.