SynthesisPloS one2018
The safety and efficacy of second-generation cryoballoon ablation plus catheter ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Second-generation cryoballoon versus contact force radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation: an updated meta-analysis of evidence from randomized controlled trials.Scientific reports · 2021Pooled it
- Global Research Progress on Radiofrequency Ablation in Cardiology.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Review
- Cryoballoon vs radiofrequency ablation of atrial fibrillation: insights from the Veterans Healthcare System.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2021Article
- Comparative efficacy and safety of catheter ablation interventions for atrial fibrillation: comprehensive network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2021Article
- PR-segment depression during cryoballoon ablation of atrial fibrillation: a case report.Journal of geriatric cardiology : JGC · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGrowing evidence suggests that second-generation cryoballoon ablation (2G-CB) is effective in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (PerAF). The cornerstone of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation is pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). The purpose of this study was to summarize the available data on the safety and mid-term (≥ 12 months) effectiveness of a 'PVI-only' strategy vs. a 'PVI-plus' strategy using 2G-CB in patients with PerAF.
methodsWe searched the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane library databases for studies on 2G-CB for PerAF. Group analysis was based on the ablation approach: 'PVI-only' versus 'PVI-plus', the latter of which involved PVI plus other substrate modifications. Studies showing clinical success rates at a follow-up (FU) of ≥ 12 months were included. Complication rates were also assessed. Data were analyzed by applying a fixed effects model.
resultsA total of 879 patients from 5 studies were analyzed. After a mid-term FU of 27 months, the overall success rate of 2G-CB for PerAF was 66.1%. In the 'PVI-plus' group, the success rate was 73.8%. In the 'PVI-only' group, the success rate was 53.6%. No heterogeneity was noted among studies (I2 = 0.0%, P = 0.82). Complications occurred in 5.2% of patients (P = 0.93), and the rate of phrenic nerve (PN) injury was 2.8% (P = 0.14). Vascular assess complications were the most frequent at 1.6% (P = 0.33). No death or myocardial infarction was reported.
conclusion'PVI-plus' involving 2G-CB seems to be safe and effective for treating PerAF.
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.