↓ Skip to main content

Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Using a Novel Variable-Loop Biphasic Pulsed Field Ablation Catheter Integrated With a 3-Dimensional Mapping System: 1-Year Outcomes of the Multicenter inspIRE…

Overview of attention for article published in Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology, February 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#7 of 1,716)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
49 news outlets
twitter
61 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Using a Novel Variable-Loop Biphasic Pulsed Field Ablation Catheter Integrated With a 3-Dimensional Mapping System: 1-Year Outcomes of the Multicenter inspIRE Study
Published in
Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology, February 2023
DOI 10.1161/circep.122.011780
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mattias Duytschaever, Tom De Potter, Massimo Grimaldi, Ante Anic, Johan Vijgen, Petr Neuzil, Hugo Van Herendael, Atul Verma, Allan Skanes, Daniel Scherr, Helmut Pürerfellner, Gediminas Rackauskas, Pierre Jaïs, Vivek Y. Reddy, Andrea Natale, Luigi Di Biase, Sebastien Knecht, Jan Petru, Georgios Kollias, Peter Lukac, Jim Hansen, Thomas Phlips

Abstract

Background - The inspIRE study evaluated safety and effectiveness of a fully integrated biphasic pulsed field ablation (PFA) system with a variable loop circular catheter for the treatment of drug-refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods - Subjects underwent pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) with the PFA system, using at least 12 applications per vein; adenosine/isoproterenol was administered to confirm entrance block. Wave I assessed initial safety, including for esophageal lesions, silent cerebral lesions (SCLs), and PV stenosis. Wave II (pivotal phase) tested i) primary safety - incidence of early onset primary adverse events (PAEs), and primary effectiveness - confirmed PVI with freedom from documented atrial arrhythmia at 12-months (12M). The study design specified an interim analysis to determine early success once 30 subjects reached 12M follow-up (FU) and all subjects reached 3M FU. Results - Across 13 centers in Europe/Canada, 226 subjects were enrolled, met criteria for safety and effectiveness evaluations and received PFA (Wave I: 40; Wave II: 186). Wave I demonstrated no esophageal thermal lesions or PV stenosis. Among 39 subjects with cerebral MRI, SCLs were detected in 4 of the first 6 subjects, after which workflow enhancements, including a 10s pause between PFA applications was implemented; subsequently, only 4 of 33 subjects had SCLs. In the Wave II phase, no PAE was reported. Upon declaring early success, 83 subjects reached 12M FU. With 100% entrance block, PVI without acute reconnection was achieved in 97.1% of targeted veins. For Wave II, the primary effectiveness endpoint per Kaplan Meier at the time of interim analysis was 70.9%; 12M freedom from symptomatic AF/atrial flutter/atrial tachycardia recurrence and repeat ablation was 78.9% and 92.3%, respectively. Total procedure and transpired PFA times were 70.1 ± 27.7 min and 26.7 ± 14.0 min, respectively. Conclusions - The inspIRE trial confirmed the safety and effectiveness of the novel mapping-integrated PFA system.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 61 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 17%
Other 4 7%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Researcher 2 4%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 4%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 29 54%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 30%
Engineering 2 4%
Unspecified 1 2%
Linguistics 1 2%
Mathematics 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 31 57%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 399. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 February 2024.
All research outputs
#79,326
of 26,332,460 outputs
Outputs from Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology
#7
of 1,716 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,073
of 491,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology
#1
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,332,460 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,716 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 491,036 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.