References:
1. Parameswaran R, Al-Kaisey AM, Kalman JM. Catheter ablation for atrial
fibrillation: current indications and evolving technologies. Nat
Rev Cardiol. 2021;18(3):210-225.
2. Buist TJ, Zipes DP, Elvan A. Atrial fibrillation ablation strategies
and technologies: past, present, and future. Clinical research in
cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society.2021;110(6):775-788.
3. Haïssaguerre M, Jaïs P, Shah DC, et al. Spontaneous initiation of
atrial fibrillation by ectopic beats originating in the pulmonary veins.The New England journal of medicine. 1998;339(10):659-666.
4. Qiu J, Wang Y. Update on high-power short-duration ablation for
pulmonary vein isolation. Journal of cardiovascular
electrophysiology. 2020;31(9):2499-2508.
5. Shah S, Barakat AF, Saliba WI, et al. Recurrent Atrial Fibrillation
After Initial Long-Term Ablation Success: Electrophysiological Findings
and Outcomes of Repeat Ablation Procedures. Circ Arrhythm
Electrophysiol. 2018;11(4):e005785.
6. Bourier F, Duchateau J, Vlachos K, et al. High-power short-duration
versus standard radiofrequency ablation: Insights on lesion metrics.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology.2018;29(11):1570-1575.
7. Chen CF, Wu J, Jin CL, Liu MJ, Xu YZ. Comparison of high-power
short-duration and low-power long-duration radiofrequency ablation for
treating atrial fibrillation: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical cardiology. 2020;43(12):1631-1640.
8. Kewcharoen J, Techorueangwiwat C, Kanitsoraphan C, et al. High-power
short duration and low-power long duration in atrial fibrillation
ablation: A meta-analysis. Journal of cardiovascular
electrophysiology. 2021;32(1):71-82.
9. Ravi V, Poudyal A, Abid QU, et al. High-power short duration vs.
conventional radiofrequency ablation of atrial fibrillation: a
systematic review and meta-analysis. Europace : European pacing,
arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working
groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular
electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology.2021;23(5):710-721.
10. Hindricks G, Potpara T, Dagres N, et al. 2020 ESC Guidelines for the
diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation developed in
collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery
(EACTS): The Task Force for the diagnosis and management of atrial
fibrillation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Developed with
the special contribution of the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA)
of the ESC. European heart journal. 2021;42(5):373-498.
11. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF.
Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised
controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of
Meta-analyses. Lancet (London, England).1999;354(9193):1896-1900.
12. Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the
assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses.European journal of epidemiology. 2010;25(9):603-605.
13. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring
inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ (Clinical research ed).2003;327(7414):557-560.
14. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JP, Rothstein HR. A basic
introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for
meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2010;1(2):97-111.
15. Dikdan SJ, Junarta J, Bodempudi S, Upadhyay N, Pang Z, Frisch DR.
Comparison of clinical and procedural outcomes between high-power
short-duration, standard-power standard-duration, and
temperature-controlled noncontact force guided ablation for atrial
fibrillation. Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology.2021;32(3):608-615.
16. Ejima K, Higuchi S, Yazaki K, et al. Comparison of high-power and
conventional-power radiofrequency energy deliveries in pulmonary vein
isolation using unipolar signal modification as a local endpoint.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology.2020;31(7):1702-1708.
17. Chen CC, Lee PT, Van Ba V, et al. Comparison of lesion
characteristics between conventional and high-power short-duration
ablation using contact force-sensing catheter in patients with
paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. BMC Cardiovasc Disord.2021;21(1):387.
18. Nilsson B, Chen X, Pehrson S, Svendsen JH. The effectiveness of a
high output/short duration radiofrequency current application technique
in segmental pulmonary vein isolation for atrial fibrillation.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac
electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing,
arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European
Society of Cardiology. 2006;8(11):962-965.
19. Park JW, Yang SY, Kim M, et al. Efficacy and Safety of High-Power
Short-Duration Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation.Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021;8:709585.
20. Kyriakopoulou M, Wielandts JY, Strisciuglio T, et al. Evaluation of
higher power delivery during RF pulmonary vein isolation using optimized
and contiguous lesions. Journal of cardiovascular
electrophysiology. 2020;31(5):1091-1098.
21. Pambrun T, Durand C, Constantin M, et al. High-Power (40-50 W)
Radiofrequency Ablation Guided by Unipolar Signal Modification for
Pulmonary Vein Isolation: Experimental Findings and Clinical Results.Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2019;12(6):e007304.
22. Baher A, Kheirkhahan M, Rechenmacher S, et al. High-Power
Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation: Using Late
Gadolinium Enhancement Magnetic Resonance Imaging as a
Novel Index of Esophageal Injury. JACC Clinical
electrophysiology. 2018;4(12):1583-1594.
23. Kumagai K, Toyama H. High-power, short-duration ablation during Box
isolation for atrial fibrillation. Journal of arrhythmia.2020;36(5):899-904.
24. Hansom SP, Alqarawi W, Birnie DH, et al. High-power, short-duration
atrial fibrillation ablation compared with a conventional approach:
Outcomes and reconnection patterns. Journal of cardiovascular
electrophysiology. 2021;32(5):1219-1228.
25. Yavin HD, Leshem E, Shapira-Daniels A, et al. Impact of High-Power
Short-Duration Radiofrequency Ablation on Long-Term Lesion Durability
for Atrial Fibrillation Ablation. JACC Clinical
electrophysiology. 2020;6(8):973-985.
26. Yazaki K, Ejima K, Kanai M, et al. Impedance drop predicts acute
electrical reconnection of the pulmonary vein-left atrium after
pulmonary vein isolation using short-duration high-power exposure.J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2020;59(3):575-584.
27. Bunch TJ, May HT, Bair TL, et al. Long-term outcomes after low
power, slower movement versus high power, faster movement irrigated-tip
catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation. Heart Rhythm.2020;17(2):184-189.
28. O’Brien J, Obeidat M, Kozhuharov N, et al. Procedural efficiencies,
lesion metrics, and 12-month clinical outcomes for Ablation Index-guided
50 W ablation for atrial fibrillation. Europace : European pacing,
arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working
groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular
electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology.2021;23(6):878-886.
29. Wielandts JY, Kyriakopoulou M, Almorad A, et al. Prospective
Randomized Evaluation of High Power During CLOSE-Guided Pulmonary Vein
Isolation: The POWER-AF Study. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol.2021;14(1):e009112.
30. Vassallo F, Meigre LL, Serpa E, et al. Reduced esophageal heating in
high-power short-duration atrial fibrillation ablation in the contact
force catheter era. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol.2021;44(7):1185-1192.
31. Kottmaier M, Popa M, Bourier F, et al. Safety and outcome of very
high-power short-duration ablation using 70 W for pulmonary vein
isolation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac
electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing,
arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European
Society of Cardiology. 2020;22(3):388-393.
32. Liu X, Gui C, Wen W, He Y, Dai W, Zhong G. Safety and Efficacy of
High Power Shorter Duration Ablation Guided by Ablation Index or Lesion
Size Index in Atrial Fibrillation Ablation: A Systematic Review and
Meta-Analysis. Journal of interventional cardiology.2021;2021:5591590.
33. Calkins H, Hindricks G, Cappato R, et al. 2017
HRS/EHRA/ECAS/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement on catheter and
surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation. Heart Rhythm.2017;14(10):e275-e444.
34. Han S, Hwang C. How to Achieve Complete and Permanent Pulmonary Vein
Isolation without Complications. Korean Circ J.2014;44(5):291-300.
35. Jiang RH, Jiang CY. Pulmonary Vein Reconnection in Patients With and
Without Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence After Ablation. JACC
Clinical electrophysiology. 2016;2(4):484-486.
36. Leshem E, Zilberman I, Tschabrunn CM, et al. High-Power and
Short-Duration Ablation for Pulmonary Vein Isolation:
Biophysical Characterization. JACC Clinical electrophysiology.2018;4(4):467-479.
37. Barkagan M, Contreras-Valdes F, Leshem E, Buxton A, Nakagawa H,
Anter E. High-power and short-duration ablation for pulmonary vein
isolation: Safety, efficacy, and long-term durability. Journal of
cardiovascular electrophysiology. 2018;29(9):1287-1296.
38. Reddy VY, Grimaldi M, De Potter T, et al. Pulmonary Vein Isolation
With Very High Power, Short Duration, Temperature-Controlled Lesions:
The QDOT-FAST Trial. JACC Clinical electrophysiology.2019;5(7):778-786.
39. Kotadia ID, Williams SE, O’Neill M. High-power, Short-duration
Radiofrequency Ablation for the Treatment of AF. Arrhythm
Electrophysiol Rev. 2020;8(4):265-272.
40. Winkle RA, Mead RH, Engel G, et al. High-power, short-duration
atrial fibrillation ablations using contact force sensing catheters:
Outcomes and predictors of success including posterior wall isolation.Heart Rhythm. 2020;17(8):1223-1231.
41. De Ponti R, Marazzi R, Doni L, Marazzato J, Baratto C,
Salerno-Uriarte J. Optimization of catheter/tissue contact during
pulmonary vein isolation: the impact of atrial rhythm. Europace :
European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of
the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular
electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology.2018;20(2):288-294.
42. Mattia L, Crosato M, Indiani S, et al. Prospective Evaluation of
Lesion Index-Guided Pulmonary Vein Isolation Technique in Patients with
Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: 1-year Follow-Up. Journal of
atrial fibrillation. 2018;10(6):1858.
43. Solimene F, Schillaci V, Shopova G, et al. Safety and efficacy of
atrial fibrillation ablation guided by Ablation Index module.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an
international journal of arrhythmias and pacing. 2019;54(1):9-15.
44. Pranata R, Vania R, Huang I. Ablation-index guided versus
conventional contact-force guided ablation in pulmonary vein isolation -
Systematic review and meta-analysis. Indian pacing and
electrophysiology journal. 2019;19(4):155-160.
45. Okamatsu H, Koyama J, Sakai Y, et al. High-power application is
associated with shorter procedure time and higher rate of first-pass
pulmonary vein isolation in ablation index-guided atrial fibrillation
ablation. Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology.2019;30(12):2751-2758.
46. Haines D. The biophysics of radiofrequency catheter ablation in the
heart: the importance of temperature monitoring. Pacing and
clinical electrophysiology : PACE. 1993;16:586-591.
47. Ali-Ahmed F, Goyal V, Patel M, Orelaru F, Haines DE, Wong WS.
High-power, low-flow, short-ablation duration-the key to avoid
collateral injury? J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2019;55(1):9-16.
48. Takemoto M, Takami M, Fukuzawa K, et al. Different tissue
thermodynamics between the 40 W and 20 W radiofrequency power settings
under the same ablation index/lesion size index. Journal of
cardiovascular electrophysiology. 2020;31(1):196-204.
49. Winkle R, Mohanty S, Patrawala R, et al. Low complication rates
using high power (45-50 W) for short duration for atrial fibrillation
ablations. Heart rhythm. 2019;16(2):165-169.