Table 1.
Review of CFAE mapping systems, EGM settings, and success rate in different clinical studies
| Study | EGM settings | Mapping system | No. patients | Success rate (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amplitude (mV) | Time (ms) | ||||
| Elayi et al. [7] | – | ≤120 | NavX | 49 | 61 |
| Lin et al. [14] | – | ≤50 | NavX | 30 | 53 |
| Nademanee et al. [16] | ≤0.15 | ≤120 | CARTO | 121 | 95 |
| Oral et al. [19] | – | ≤120 | CARTO | 100 | 16 |
| Oral et al. [20] | – | ≤120 | CARTO | 50 | 18 |
| Porter et al. [21] | 0.05–0.15 | 60–120 | CARTO | 67 | 20 |
| Verma et al. [30] | – | 40–120 | NavX | 30 | 14 |
| Verma et al. [31] | 0.05≤ | 30–120 | NavX | 35 | 54 |
Previous studies conducted either additional or lone CFAE-guided ablation using different mapping systems and varying operator-defined settings, resulting in conflicting outcomes