ArticleJournal of arrhythmia2021
Outcomes of uninterrupted vs interrupted Periprocedural direct oral Anticoagulants in atrial Fibrillation ablation: A meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of arrhythmia, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Continuous vs interrupted direct oral anticoagulants for minimal bleeding-risk surgical procedures-a systematic review and meta-analysis.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2026Pooled it
- Interrupted versus uninterrupted anticoagulation therapy for catheter ablation in adults with arrhythmias.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Safety and Efficacy of Uninterrupted Oral Anticoagulation in Patients Undergoing Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation with Different Techniques.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Management of Patients Treated with Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Clinical Practice and Challenging Scenarios.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Outcomes of uninterrupted vs interrupted Periprocedural direct oral Anticoagulants in atrial Fibrillation ablation: A meta-analysis.Journal of arrhythmia · 2021Article
- Ultrasound-guided versus anatomic landmark-guided vascular access in cardiac electrophysiology procedures: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Indian pacing and electrophysiology journalReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStudies indicate that uninterrupted anticoagulation (UA) is superior to interrupted anticoagulation (IA) in the periprocedural period during catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation. Still IA is followed in many centers considering the bleeding risk. This meta-analysis compares interrupted and uninterrupted direct oral anticoagulation during catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation.
methodsA systematic search into PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane databases was performed and five studies were selected that directly compared IA vs UA before ablation and reported procedural outcomes, embolic, and bleeding events. The primary outcome of the study was major adverse cerebro-cardiovascular events.
resultsThe meta-analysis included 840 patients with UA and 938 patients with IA. Median follow-up was 30 days. Activated clotting time (ACT) before first heparin bolus was significantly longer with UA (
conclusionsUA during atrial fibrillation ablation has similar bleeding event rates, procedural times, and mean ACTs as IA, with fewer SCEs.
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.