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.