Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31463056›Full record

ReviewArrhythmia & electrophysiology review2019

Individualised Approaches for Catheter Ablation of AF: Patient Selection and Procedural Endpoints.

Nicolas Johner, Mehdi Namdar, Dipen C Shah

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Arrhythmia & electrophysiology review, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Recurrence of atrial fibrillation after pulmonary vein isolation in dependence of arterial stiffness.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Nicolas JohnerCardiology Division, University Hospital of Geneva Geneva, Switzerland.
Mehdi NamdarCardiology Division, University Hospital of Geneva Geneva, Switzerland.
Dipen C ShahCardiology Division, University Hospital of Geneva Geneva, Switzerland.
University Hospital of Geneva · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is the cornerstone of AF ablation, but studies have reported improved efficacy with high rates of repeat procedures. Because of the large interindividual variability in the underlying electrical and anatomical substrate, achieving optimal outcomes requires an individualised approach. This includes optimal candidate selection as well as defined ablation strategies with objective procedure endpoints beyond PVI. Candidate selection is traditionally based on coarse and sometimes arbitrary clinical stratification such as AF type, but finer predictors of treatment efficacy including biomarkers, advanced imaging and electrocardiographic parameters have shown promise. Numerous ancillary ablation strategies beyond PVI have been investigated, but the absence of a clear mechanistic and evidence-based endpoint, unlike in other arrhythmias, has remained a universal limitation. Potential endpoints include functional ones such as AF termination or non-inducibility and substrate-based endpoints such as isolation of low-voltage areas. This review summarises the relevant literature and proposes guidance for clinical practice and future research.

Indexed as

AFcatheter ablationendpointindividualisednon-inducibilityoutcomepredictorpulmonary vein isolationtermination

Identifiers

PMID31463056
PMCPMC6702473
OpenAlexW2965713712

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.