ArticleYonsei medical journal2016
Early Experience of Novel Oral Anticoagulants in Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: Efficacy and Safety Comparison to Warfarin.
Article in Yonsei medical journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Meta-analysis of the safety and efficacy of using minimally interrupted novel oral anticoagulants in patients undergoing catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2021Pooled it
- Meta-analysis of safety and efficacy of oral anticoagulants in patients requiring catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation.Cardiovascular revascularization medicine : including molecular interventions · 2019Pooled it
- Unilateral versus Bilateral Groin Puncture for Atrial Fibrillation Ablation: Multi-Center Prospective Randomized Study.Yonsei medical journal · 2019Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCompared with warfarin, novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are convenient to use, although they require a blanking period immediately before radiofrequency catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF). We compared NOACs and uninterrupted warfarin in the peri-procedural period of AF ablation. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe compared 141 patients treated with peri-procedural NOACs (72% men; 58 ± 11 years old; 71% with paroxysmal AF) and 281 age-, sex-, AF type-, and history of stroke-matched patients treated with uninterrupted warfarin. NOACs were stopped 24 hours before the procedure and restarted on the same procedure day after hemostasis was achieved.
resultsWe found no difference in the CHA₂DS₂-VASc (p=0.376) and HAS-BLED scores (p=0.175) between the groups. The preprocedural anticoagulation duration was significantly shorter in the NOAC group (76.3 ± 110.7 days) than in the warfarin group (274.7 ± 582.7 days, p<0.001). The intra-procedural total heparin requirement was higher (p<0.001), although mean activated clotting time was shorter (350.0 ± 25.0 s vs. 367.4 ± 42.9 s, p<0.001), in the NOAC group than in the warfarin group. There was no significant difference in thromboembolic events (1.4% vs. 0%, p=0.111) or major bleeding (1.4% vs. 3.9%, p=0.235) between the NOAC and warfarin groups. Minor stroke occurred in two cases within 10 hours of the procedure (underlying CHA₂DS₂-VASc scores 0 and 1) in the NOAC group.
conclusionPre-procedural anticoagulation duration was shorter and intra-procedural heparin requirement was higher with NOAC than with uninterrupted warfarin during AF ablation. Although the peri-procedural thromboembolism and bleeding incidences did not differ, minor stroke occurred in two cases in the NOAC group.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.