ArticleJournal of arrhythmia2020
Catheter vs thoracoscopic ablation for atrial fibrillation: Meta-analysis of randomized trials.
Article in Journal of arrhythmia, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surface electrocardiogram f wave analysis in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing thoracoscopic epicardial ablation.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2024Article
- Catheter vs thoracoscopic ablation for atrial fibrillation: Meta-analysis of randomized trials.Journal of arrhythmia · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe meta-analyzed the efficacy and safety of catheter (CA) vs thoracoscopic (TA) ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF).
methodsPubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched until 31/12/2019 for relevant randomized trials and subsequent pooled analyses.
resultsIn six trials totaling 465 patients (254 CA/211 TA), 1-year AF recurrences were higher for CA (46% vs 26%, odds ratio 2.90 [95% CI 1.32-6.38]), whereas total adverse events were lower (10% vs 25%, 0.35 [0.14-0.86], respectively).
conclusionCA has lower efficacy but higher safety than TA. CA should remain the first-line AF ablation strategy, and TA reserved for selected CA-resistant patients where rhythm control is clinically necessary.
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.