ArticleAdvances in therapy2020
Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation Using Ablation Index-Guided Contact Force Ablation: A Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison to Cryoballoon Ablation.
Article in Advances in therapy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAblation Index, also known as VISITAG SURPOINT™, is a novel lesion-quality marker that improves outcomes in radiofrequency (RF) catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF). There is no direct evidence on the comparative effectiveness of RF ablation with Ablation Index and cryoballoon (CB). The objective of the present study was to conduct a matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) using individual patient-level data (IPD) to compare the effectiveness of RF ablation with Ablation Index to that of CB on recurrence of atrial arrhythmias 12 months after catheter ablation in patients with paroxysmal AF (PAF).
methodsIndividual patient-level data for RF ablation with Ablation Index were obtained from two studies: Solimene et al. [J Interv Card Electrophysiol 54(1):9-15, 2019] and Hussein et al. [J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 28(9):1037-1047, 2017]. Comparable CB studies identified from a systematic literature review were pooled. Prognostic variables for adjustment were ranked a priori by several practicing electrophysiologists. In the absence of a common treatment arm between the Ablation Index and CB studies, an unanchored MAIC was conducted. Primary analysis compared the Solimene et al. study to pooled CB studies. A secondary analysis compared pooled RF ablation with Ablation Index studies to pooled CB studies. Several scenario and sensitivity analyses were conducted.
resultsPrimary analyses showed statistically significant reductions in the rate of arrhythmia recurrence with RF ablation with Ablation Index compared to CB in unmatched, unadjusted (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.27-0.95) and matched (0.42, 0.21-0.86) analyses. Greater reductions in the rate of arrhythmia recurrence that favored RF ablation with Ablation Index were observed after matching and adjusting for age (0.41, 0.20-0.85), age and left ventricular ejection fraction (0.37, 0.16-0.88), and age, sex, and left ventricular ejection fraction (0.30, 0.13-0.71). Secondary and sensitivity analyses showed similar reductions.
conclusionsRadiofrequency ablation with Ablation Index was associated with reductions in recurrence of atrial arrhythmias at 12 months compared to CB in unmatched and unadjusted, matched, and matched and adjusted comparisons.
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.