ArticleScientific reports2021
Very long term outcome after linear versus electrogram guided ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of the Efficacy of Sacubitril/Valsartan on Radiofrequency Ablation in Patients with Hypertension and Persistent Atrial Fibrillation.Cardiovascular drugs and therapy · 2025Article
- Simplified stepwise anatomical ablation strategy for mitral isthmus: efficacy, efficiency, safety, and outcome.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
- Predictive value of TRPV2 expression from peripheral blood mononuclear cells on the early recurrence of atrial fibrillation after radiofrequency catheter ablation.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The optimal ablation strategy for persistent atrial fibrillation (PsAF) remains to be defined. We sought to compare very long-term outcomes between linear ablation and electrogram (EGM)-guided ablation for PsAF. In a retrospective analysis, long-term arrhythmia-free survival compared between two propensity-score matched cohorts, one with pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) and linear ablation including roof/mitral isthmus line (LINE-group, n = 52) and one with PVI and EGM-guided ablation (EGM-group; n = 52). Overall, 99% of patients underwent successful PVI. Complete block following linear ablation was achieved for 94% of roof lines and 81% of mitral lines (both lines blocked in 75%). AF termination by EGM-guided ablation was accomplished in 40% of patients. Non-PV foci were targeted in 7 (13%) in the LINE-group and 5 (10%) patients in the EGM-group (p = 0.76). During 100 ± 28 months of follow-up, linear ablation was associated with superior arrhythmia-free survival after the initial and last procedure (1.8 ± 0.9 procedures) compared with EGM-group (Logrank test: p = 0.0001 and p = 0.045, respectively). In multivariable analysis, longer AF duration and EGM-guided ablation remained as independent predictors of atrial arrhythmia recurrence. Linear ablation might be a more effective complementary technique to PVI than EGM-guided ablation for PsAF ablation.
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.