ReviewArrhythmia & electrophysiology review2018
The Impact of Advances in Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Devices on the Incidence and Prevention of Complications.
Review in Arrhythmia & electrophysiology review, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Antiarrhythmic drug therapy and catheter ablation in patients with paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2024Pooled it
- Fast-Response Variable-Stiffness Magnetic Catheters for Minimally Invasive Surgery.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024Article
- Article
- Predicting early reconnection after cryoballoon ablation with procedural and biophysical parameters.Heart rhythm O2 · 2021Article
- Procedural Patterns and Safety of Atrial Fibrillation Ablation: Findings From Get With The Guidelines-Atrial Fibrillation.Circulation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology · 2020Article
- Individualised Approaches for Catheter Ablation of AF: Patient Selection and Procedural Endpoints.Arrhythmia & electrophysiology review · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The number of patients with atrial fibrillation currently referred for catheter ablation is increasing. However, the number of trained operators and the capacity of many electrophysiology labs are limited. Accordingly, a steeper learning curve and technical advances for efficient and safe ablation are desirable. During the last decades several catheter-based ablation devices have been developed and adapted to improve not only lesion durability, but also safety profiles, to shorten procedure time and to reduce radiation exposure. The goal of this review is to summarise the reported incidence of complications, considering device-related specific aspects for point-by-point, multi-electrode and balloon-based devices for pulmonary vein isolation. Recent technical and procedural developments aimed at reducing procedural risks and complications rates will be reviewed. In addition, the impact of technical advances on procedural outcome, procedural length and radiation exposure will be discussed.
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.