What is the clinical evidence from this study?

Study design: Observational. Population: Septal accessory pathways (n=24). Intervention: Cryoablation vs. Radiofrequency ablation.

August 15, 2003HeartOpen Access

Comparison of radiofrequency versus cryothermy catheter ablation of septal accessory pathways: Figure 1

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Key result

Cryoablation was retrospectively compared to radiofrequency ablation for septal accessory pathways in 24 patients, but the truncated abstract reports no quantitative outcomes.

Authors

GKG.P. KimmanNoordwest Ziekenhuisgroep

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Study Design

Type

Observational (n=24)

PICO

Population

24 patients with septally located accessory pathways treated with radiofrequency or cryoablation.

Exposure / Comparator

Cryoablation vs Radiofrequency ablation

Cite This Study

G.P. Kimman (2003) conducted an observational in Septal accessory pathways (n=24). Cryoablation vs. Radiofrequency ablation was evaluated. Cryoablation was retrospectively compared to radiofrequency ablation for septal accessory pathways in 24 patients, but the truncated abstract reports no quantitative outcomes.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a9fba9883e2eedfeeba487c https://doi.org/10.1136/heart.89.9.1091

Topics

AF ablation outcomes

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Comparison of radiofrequency versus cryothermy catheter ablation of septal accessory pathways: Figure 1

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Study Design

PICO

Cite This Study

Topics

Comparison of radiofrequency versus cryothermy catheter ablation of septal accessory pathways: Figure 1

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Study Design

PICO

Cite This Study

Also Consider

Topics

Also Consider