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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Virtual In-Silico Modeling Guided Catheter Ablation Predicts Effective Linear Ablation Lesion Set for Longstanding Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: Multicenter Prospective Randomized Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Physiology, October 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fphys.2017.00792 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jaemin Shim, Minki Hwang, Jun-Seop Song, Byounghyun Lim, Tae-Hoon Kim, Boyoung Joung, Sung-Hwan Kim, Yong-Seog Oh, Gi-Byung Nam, Young Keun On, Seil Oh, Young-Hoon Kim, Hui-Nam Pak |
| Abstract |
Objective: Radiofrequency catheter ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF) still has a substantial recurrence rate. This study aims to investigate whether an AF ablation lesion set chosen using in-silico ablation (V-ABL) is clinically feasible and more effective than an empirically chosen ablation lesion set (Em-ABL) in patients with PeAF. Methods: We prospectively included 108 patients with antiarrhythmic drug-resistant PeAF (77.8% men, age 60.8 ± 9.9 years), and randomly assigned them to the V-ABL (n = 53) and Em-ABL (n = 55) groups. Five different in-silico ablation lesion sets [1 pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), 3 linear ablations, and 1 electrogram-guided ablation] were compared using heart-CT integrated AF modeling. We evaluated the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of V-ABL compared with that of Em-ABL. Results: The pre-procedural computing time for five different ablation strategies was 166 ± 11 min. In the Em-ABL group, the earliest terminating blinded in-silico lesion set matched with the Em-ABL lesion set in 21.8%. V-ABL was not inferior to Em-ABL in terms of procedure time (p = 0.403), ablation time (p = 0.510), and major complication rate (p = 0.900). During 12.6 ± 3.8 months of follow-up, the clinical recurrence rate was 14.0% in the V-ABL group and 18.9% in the Em-ABL group (p = 0.538). In Em-ABL group, clinical recurrence rate was significantly lower after PVI+posterior box+anterior linear ablation, which showed the most frequent termination during in-silico ablation (log-rank p = 0.027). Conclusions: V-ABL was feasible in clinical practice, not inferior to Em-ABL, and predicts the most effective ablation lesion set in patients who underwent PeAF ablation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 42 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 21% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 12% |
| Researcher | 4 | 10% |
| Professor | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 17% |
| Unknown | 9 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 11 | 26% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 10% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 17% |
| Unknown | 14 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 12 October 2017.
All research outputs
#20,449,496
of 23,005,189 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#9,475
of 13,760 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#283,206
of 324,711 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#225
of 320 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,005,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,760 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 324,711 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 320 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.