Key result
AI-guided CTI ablation linked to ~34% shorter RF duration vs conventional ablation with similar success.
Why the study?
Data on using the AutoMark Index ablation algorithm with a flexible-tip radiofrequency ablation catheter for cavotricuspid isthmus ablation remained limited.
Does an AI-guided ablation protocol improve procedural efficiency compared to a conventional protocol in patients undergoing CTI ablation?
Observational (n=148)
Does an AI-guided ablation protocol improve procedural efficiency compared to a conventional protocol in patients undergoing CTI ablation?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
An AI-guided CTI ablation protocol using 50 W significantly reduces radiofrequency duration and procedural time without compromising acute success or safety compared to a conventional 40 W protocol.
Introduction AutoMark Index (AI) is a novel ablation algorithm integrating contact force (CF), radiofrequency (RF) current, and application duration to provide real‐time lesion formation feedback. Data of AI using a flexible‐tip RF ablation catheter for cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) ablation remain limited. The objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AI‐guided CTI ablation. Methods Consecutive 148 patients undergoing CTI ablation with a CF‐sensing flexible‐tip ablation catheter were included. Outcomes using an AI‐guided protocol (50 W, targeting AI of 50; AI‐50 group, 62 patients) were compared with a conventional protocol (40 W for 20 s; 40‐W group, 86 patients). Results The first‐line success rate showed no difference between the two groups (40‐W group: 72/86 [84.7%] vs. AI‐50 group: 51/62 [82.2%], p = 0.81). The total RF application showed no difference (40‐W group: 12 [9.5–15] vs. AI‐50 group: 12 [9.7–16], p = 0.50); however, significant differences were observed in the total RF duration (40‐W group: 274 [211–372] s vs. AI‐50 group: 180 [138–249] s, p < 0.001), the RF duration for initial block (40‐W group: 225 [163–323] s vs. AI‐50 group: 149 [109–221] s, p < 0.001), and CTI procedural time (40‐W group: 9.2 [6.0–14.6] min vs. AI‐50 group: 6.3 [4.5–9.7] min, p = 0.007). No significant differences were observed in the mean CF, average temperature, and CTI length between the two groups. No major complications were observed in either of the groups. Conclusion AI‐guided CTI ablation protocol is efficient in shortening RF duration for acute bidirectional CTI block and CTI procedure time compared to the conventional 40 W ablation protocol.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sudo et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) ablation (n=148). AI-guided protocol vs. Conventional protocol (40 W for 20 s) was evaluated on First-line success rate (p=0.81). AI-guided CTI ablation reduced total RF duration and procedural time compared to conventional 40 W ablation, with similar first-line success rates.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: