ArticleIndian pacing and electrophysiology journal
Pulmonary vein isolation using multi-electrode radiofrequency vs conventional point-by-point radiofrequency ablation: A meta-analysis of randomized and non-randomized studies.
Article in Indian pacing and electrophysiology journal. 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, 5 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsPulmonary vein isolation is effective in reducing atrial fibrillation (AF) episodes. Previous studies suggest single-shot techniques are effective and safe for this purpose. Procedural and clinical outcomes were compared between multi-electrode and point-by-point radiofrequency ablations by performing a meta-analysis of all randomized and non-randomized studies. METHODS AND
resultsSystematic reviews of MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases were performed. Studies comparing procedural (procedure and fluoroscopy times) and clinical (AF recurrence) outcomes were included in the meta-analysis. A total of 13 clinical studies (5 randomized and 8 non-randomized) including 2152 patients met the inclusion criteria. In patients underwent multi-electrode ablation, there were significant reductions in both total procedure and fluoroscopy times, compared with point-by-point ablation (mean difference = -34.3 min [95% CI (-50.1 to -18.5)], p < 0.001 and mean difference = -7.1 min [95% CI (-12.0 to -2.2)], p < 0.01, respectively). These significances also continued in patients with paroxysmal AF. No such difference was observed in regard to AF recurrence between the 2 ablation strategies (RR = 0.90 [95% CI (0.80-1.01)], p = 0.066). This insignificance was also observed in patients with paroxysmal AF.
conclusionsIn a heterogeneous AF population, multi-electrode ablation is as effective as point-by-point ablation, with better procedural and fluoroscopy durations.
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.