ArticleClinical cardiology2019
Comparisons of efficacy, safety, and recurrence risk factors of paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation catheter ablation using robotic magnetic navigation system.
Article in Clinical cardiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Characteristics, trends, and outcomes of ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation: a Danish cohort study.European heart journal open · 2025Article
- Relationship between anatomical characteristics of pulmonary veins and atrial fibrillation recurrence after radiofrequency catheter ablation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Review
- Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Using Robotic Magnetic Navigation Reduces the Incidence of Silent Cerebral Embolism.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Article
- Comparisons of efficacy, safety, and recurrence risk factors of paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation catheter ablation using robotic magnetic navigation system.Clinical cardiology · 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNo data exist on comparisons of efficacy, safety, and recurrence risk factors of paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation using robotic magnetic navigation system (MNS), respectively.
methodsAbout 151 AF patients were prospectively enrolled and divided into paroxysmal AF group (n = 102) and persistent AF group (n = 49). Circumferential pulmonary vein antrum isolation (CPVI) was performed in all patients. Linear ablation at the left atrial roof and mitral isthmus was performed in patients with persistent AF in addition to CPVI. The procedural time, X-ray exposure time, acute and long-term success rates of CPVI, and procedure-related complications were analyzed. The AF recurrence rates in the two groups were compared during 1 year, and Cox regression was used to analyze the recurrence risk factors.
resultsThe acute success rates of CPVI in the two groups were 98.04% and 97.96%, respectively. There were no significant differences in the procedural time, X-ray exposure time, and ablation time between the two groups (P > 0.05). No serious complications appeared in either group. The AF ablation success rates were 70.6% and 57.1% for the paroxysmal and persistent groups respectively at 12-month follow-up (P = 0.102). AF duration and coronary heart disease prior to ablation were associated with the higher AF recurrence in patients with persistent AF.
conclusionAblation using MNS is effective and safe both in patients with paroxysmal and persistent AF. AF duration and coronary heart disease prior to ablation are two independent risk factors of AF recurrence in patients with persistent AF postoperatively.
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.