SynthesisMedicine2019
Hybrid ablation versus transcatheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hybrid convergent ablation versus endocardial catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised control trials and propensity matched studies.Journal of cardiothoracic surgery · 2022Pooled it
- Tailoring the Ablative Strategy for Atrial Fibrillation: A State-of-the-Art Review.Cardiology research and practice · 2022Review
- Hybrid convergent ablation versus endocardial catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of arrhythmia · 2021Article
- Catheter Ablation in the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation.The International journal of angiology : official publication of the International College of Angiology, Inc · 2020Article
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
backgroundDespite the successful creation of complex lesion sets during hybrid ablation (HA), reoccurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF), and/or atrial arrhythmia and procedural complications still occur. The main objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety between HA and transcatheter ablation (TA).
methodsWe searched Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) database up to October 2017. Studies that satisfied our predefined inclusion criteria were included. Of the 894 records, 4 studies encompassing 331 patients were included in our study. We assessed pooled data using random-effect or fixed-effect model. The main endpoint was freedom of atrial arrhythmia after follow-up duration, secondary results were procedure time and intraoperative and postoperative adverse events. Similarly, tertiary outcomes were endocardial time, fluoroscopy time, and postoperative hospitalization.
resultsCompared with TA, HA treatment through mini-thoracotomy access improved superiority in freedom of atrial arrhythmia after follow-up duration (odds ratio [OR] = 6.67, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.63-16.90), but HA increased the incidence of intraoperative and postoperative adverse events for AF patients (OR = 2.98, 95% CI: 1.30-6.83). HA through either mini-thoracotomy or transdiaphragmatic/subxiphoid access had longer procedure time and postoperative hospitalization than TA. However, endocardial time was shorter than TA.
conclusionsFor AF patients, HA possessed of an overall superior outcome using mini-thoracotomy way to TA. Although HA had longer procedure time, it yielded a reduction in endocardial time. Meanwhile, we should pay attention to the significantly high risk of intraoperative and postoperative adverse events that the HA generated.
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.