ArticleInternational journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature2020
Applying the CHA
Article in International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIt remains unknown whether catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) reduces future acute coronary syndrome (ACS) risk or whether the CHA
methodsPropensity scores were calculated for each patient and used to assemble a cohort of 787 patients undergoing AF ablation in 2003-2012. Patients were compared to an equal number of AF patients treated with antiarrhythmic medications and a control group without AF. Patients with previous coronary events were excluded. The primary endpoint was ACS occurrence.
resultsBaseline clinical characteristics were comparable. After a mean 9.1 ± 3.2-year follow-up, the ablation group had lower incidence of new onset ACS than the medication and non-AF control groups (annual incidence: 0.15%. 0.78%, and 0.35%; with 2.67, 4.16, and 10.44 cases/1000 person-years, respectively; P < 0.001). After adjusting for multiple confounders, the ablation group had lower future ACS risk than the medication (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.20, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.13-0.30) and control groups (HR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.20-0.45). The CHA
conclusionsThis study suggested that catheter ablation for AF may be beneficial to reduce future ACS risk in AF patients, and a high baseline CHA
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.