ArticleClinical cardiology2020
Comparing between second-generation cryoballoon vs open-irrigated radiofrequency ablation in elderly patients: Acute and long-term outcomes.
Article in Clinical cardiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Left atrial remodeling and voltage-guided ablation outcome in persistent atrial fibrillation patients over 75 years of age.Heart rhythm O2 · 2025Article
- Efficacy and safety of the second-generation cryoballoon ablation for the treatment of persistent atrial fibrillation in elderly patients.Journal of arrhythmia · 2021Article
- Cryoballoon Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation in Octogenarians.Arrhythmia & electrophysiology review · 2020Review
- Comparing between second-generation cryoballoon vs open-irrigated radiofrequency ablation in elderly patients: Acute and long-term outcomes.Clinical cardiology · 2020Article
- Safety and efficacy of cryoballoon versus radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation in elderly patients: A real-world evidence.Indian pacing and electrophysiology journalArticle
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLimited comparative data are available regarding catheter ablation (CA) of atrial fibrillation (AF) using second-generation cryoballoon (CB-2) vs radiofrequency (RF) ablation in elderly patients (>75-year-old). HYPOTHESIS: CB-2 ablation may demonstrate different outcomes compared with that using RF ablation for elderly patients with AF.
methodElderly patients with symptomatic drug-refractory AF were included in the study. Pulmonary vein isolation was performed in all patients.
resultsA total of 324 elderly patients were included (RF: 176, CB-2:148) from September 2016 to April 2019. The CB-2 was associated with shorter procedure time and left atrial dwell time (112.9 ± 11.1 vs 135.1 ± 9.9 minutes, P < .001; 53.7 ± 8.9 vs 65.1.9 ± 9.0 minutes, P < .001), but marked fluoroscopy utilization (22.1 ± 3.3 vs 18.5 ± 3.6 minutes, P < .001). Complications occurred in 3.3% (CB-2) and 6.2% (RF) of patients with no significant different (P = .307). The length of stay after ablation was shorter, but the costs were higher in the CB-2 group (1.94 vs 2.53 days, P < .001 and 91 132.6 ± 3723.5 vs 81 149.4 ± 6824.1 CNY, P < .001) compared to the RF group. Additionally, the rate of early recurrence of atrial arrhythmia was lower in the CB-2 group (14.2 vs 23.3%, P = .047), but the long-term success rate was similar between two groups.
conclusionsCB-2 is associated with shorter procedure time, left atrial dwell time, and length of stay after ablation, but its costs and fluoroscopy time are greater than the RF group. Moreover, the rate of complications and long-term success are similar between the two groups.
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.