ArticleClinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society2021
Safety and patient-reported outcomes in index ablation versus repeat ablation in atrial fibrillation: insights from the German Ablation Registry.
Article in Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of SGLT2 Inhibitors on the Efficacy of First-Time Pulmonary Vein Isolation and Clinical Course of Patients with Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction and Atrial Fibrillation.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Article
- Do extra-pulmonary triggers or autonomic neural activity affect rhythm control by anti-arrhythmic drugs in patients with post-ablation atrial fibrillation recurrence?Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- Effect of repeat catheter ablation vs. antiarrhythmic drug therapy among patients with recurrent atrial tachycardia/atrial fibrillation after atrial fibrillation catheter ablation: data from CHINA-AF registry.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2023Article
- Reablation in Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence and Pulmonary Vein Reconnection: Cryoballoon versus Radiofrequency as Index Ablation Procedures.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Patients' attitude towards a sham-controlled trial on pulmonary vein isolation in atrial fibrillation.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2022Article
- Antiarrhythmic drug therapy after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation-Insights from the German Ablation Registry.Pharmacology research & perspectives · 2021Article
- Genetics of atrial fibrillation-practical applications for clinical management: if not now, when and how?Cardiovascular research · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPulmonary vein isolation is an established strategy for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF). However, in a significant number of patients, a repeat procedure is mandatory due to arrhythmia recurrence. In this study, we report safety data and procedural details of patients undergoing index ablation versus repeat ablation in a registry-based real-life setting.
methodsPatients from the German Ablation Registry, a prospective, multicentre registry of patients undergoing ablation between January 2007 and January 2010 were included.
resultsA total of 4155 patients were enrolled in the study. Group I (index ablation) consisted of 3377/4155 (82.1%) and group II (repeat ablation) of 738/4155 (17.9%). Patients in group I had a significantly higher ratio of paroxysmal AF (69.3% vs 61.9%, p < 0.001) and significantly less persistent AF (30.7% vs 38.1%, p < 0.001). The repeat group showed significantly lower mean RF application duration (2580 s. vs 1960, p < 0.001), less fluoroscopy time (29 min. vs. 27 min., p < 0.001), less mean dose area product (DAP) (3744 cGy × cm
conclusionRepeat catheter ablation is safe and provides a symptomatic relief comparable to index ablation. Repeat procedures are significantly shorter and use less fluoroscopy.
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.