SynthesisBrazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologica2017
Comparative efficacy and safety of contact force-sensing catheter and second-generation cryoballoon ablation for atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologica, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Second-generation cryoballoon vs. contact-force sensing radiofrequency catheter ablation in atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2021Pooled it
- Trends over the recent 6 years in ablation modalities and strategies, post-ablation medication, and clinical outcomes of atrial fibrillation ablation.Journal of arrhythmia · 2023Article
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of the contact force (CF)-sensing catheter and second-generation cryoballoon (CB) ablation for treating atrial fibrillation (AF). Six controlled clinical trials comparing ablation for AF using a CF-sensing catheter or second-generation CB were identified from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Wanfang Data, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. The procedure duration was significantly lower in the CB group compared with that in the CF group [mean difference (MD)=29.4; 95%CI=17.84-40.96; P=0.01], whereas there was no difference between the groups for fluoroscopy duration (MD=0.59; 95%CI=-4.48-5.66; P=0.82). Moreover, there was no difference in the incidence of non-lethal complications (embolic event, tamponade, femoral/subclavian hematoma, arteriovenous fistula, pulmonary vein stenosis, phrenic nerve palsy, and esophageal injury) between the CB and the CF groups (8.38 vs 5.35%; RR=0.66; 95%CI=0.37-1.17; P=0.15). Transient phrenic nerve palsy occurred in 17 of 326 patients (5.2%) of the CB group vs none in the CF group (RR=0.12; 95%CI=0.03-0.43; P=0.001). A comparable proportion of patients in CF and CB groups suffered from AF recurrence during the 12-month follow-up after a single ablation procedure [risk ratio (RR)=1.03; 95%CI=0.78-1.35; P=0.84]. AF ablation using CF-sensing catheters and second-generation CB showed comparable fluoroscopy duration and efficacy (during a 12-month follow-up), with shorter procedure duration and different complications in the CB 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.