ArticleJournal of biomedical research2016
Assessment of atrial electromechanical interval using echocardiography after catheter ablation in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation.
Article in Journal of biomedical research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
We sought to investigate variation of atrial electromechanical interval after catheter ablation procedure in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation using pulse Doppler (PW) and pulse tissue Doppler imaging (PW-TDI). A total of 25 consecutive in-patients with persistent atrial fibrillation, who restored sinus rhythm after ablation procedure, were recruited in our cardiac center. Echocardiography was performed on each patient at 2 hours, 1 day, 5 days, 1 month and 3 months after the ablation therapy, and atrial electromechanical delay was measured simultaneously by PW and PW-TDI. There was no significant difference between PW and TDI in measuring atrial electromechanical delay. However, at postoperative 2 hours, peak A detection rates were mathematically but nonsignificantly greater by PW-TDI than by PW. Second, there was a significant decreasing trend in atrial electromechanical interval from postoperative 2 hours to 3 months, but only postoperative 2-hour atrial electromechanical interval was significantly greater than atrial electromechanical interval at other time. Lastly, patients without postoperative 2-hour atrial electromechanical interval had a significantly longer duration of atrial fibrillation as compared to those with postoperative 2-hour atrial electromechanical interval, by the PW or by PW-TDI, respectively. In patients with persistent atrial fibrillation, atrial electromechanical interval may decrease significantly within the first 24 hours after ablation but remain consistent later, and was significantly related to patients' duration of atrial fibrillation. Atrial electromechanical interval, as a potential predicted factor, is recommended to be measured by either PW or TDI after 24 hours, when patients had recovered sinus rhythm by radiofrequency ablation.
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.