ArticleJournal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners2020
Variations in follow-up after atrial fibrillation ablation.
Article in Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Efficacy and safety of catheter ablation with vein of Marshall ethanol infusion in patients with persistent AF and HFrEF.Biomedical reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA multidisciplinary patient-centered approach using evidence-based care is recommended in recent atrial fibrillation (AF) guidelines to achieve quality patient outcomes. Professional society guidelines are conflicting and vague in recommendations on timing of follow-up after AF ablation. PURPOSE: The aim of this secondary analysis was to examine whether the type and timing of follow-up care after AF ablation affected patient outcomes.
methodsA 2-year, longitudinal, pilot study to explore patient experiences during the first 6 months following an AF ablation was conducted. Patients completed surveys and phone interviews before ablation, and at 1, 3, and 6 months after the ablation. Pearson correlations and repeated-measures analysis of variance were used for comparison of outcomes over time.
resultsThe sample (N = 20) had a mean age of 65 (± 7) years, was 55% female, 35% paroxysmal AF, and 65% persistent AF pre-ablation. Timing of follow-up visits following AF ablation varied widely. Patients reported many concerns and difficulties reflecting the lack of knowledge and unrealistic expectations of post-ablation recovery. Better outcomes were noted in those who were seen at 1-week post-ablation by a nurse practitioner (NP) compared with those who were not seen until 1 or 3 months after ablation by a physician. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Atrial fibrillation ablation is routinely performed in the United States, yet there seems to be a lack of standardization concerning the type and timing of follow-up care after AF ablation. These preliminary findings support a standardized approach to include an NP visit at one week after AF ablation to achieve quality AF patient outcomes.
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.