ArticleHerzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie2013
[Surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation. Indications, techniques and results].
Article in Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- [Prevention and treatment of cardiac arrhythmia in patients with congenital heart defects: surgical aspects].Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Catheter ablation has been the preferred choice of treatment for many patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and advanced to a first line treatment option. However, incomplete ablation lines and varying long-term success rates remain a problem in certain subgroups, especially patients with persistent AF or large left atria. Alternative energy sources and advances in the device design have shifted the surgeons' focus on less invasive procedures. Minimally invasive performed endocardial ablation or even endoscopical ablation on the beating heart reveals success rates of 90 % freedom from atrial fibrillation at 2 years independent from the duration or type of AF. The randomized FAST-trial demonstrated superiority of endoscopic ablation compared to catheter ablation after 1 year. Given the multiple theories of the mechanism causing AF and the results that can be achieved by minimally invasive surgery, a thoroughly assessment of the individual patients is mandatory and surgery should be considered in all symptomatic patients who have failed catheter ablation or who are not good candidates for catheter ablation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23595229What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.