ArticleJournal of atrial fibrillation2021
UBLED AF (Uninterrupted BLackpool EDoxaban vs Warfarin vs Rivaroxaban in Atrial Fibrillation/Flutter ablation) Study.
Article in Journal of atrial fibrillation, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimCatheter ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF)/atrial flutter carries a risk of thromboembolism and major bleeding. In light of recent prospective trial data on the safety and efficacy of uninterrupted edoxaban in patients undergoing AF/flutter ablation, real-world Data was aimed for validation.
methodsA total of 228 patients who underwent AF/atrial flutter ablation over 14 months at our centre were retrospectively analyzed. All patients received uninterrupted oral anticoagulation for at least 4 weeks prior to ablation and 3 months post-ablation. Both bleeding and thromboembolic events were assessed at 24 hours comparing patients on warfarin, rivaroxaban and edoxaban.
resultsMean age of patients were 68.5 +/- 8 years in the warfarin group ( N =86), 63.4 +/- 10.6 years; in the edoxaban group ( N =63) and 62.3 +/- 11.6 years in the rivaroxaban group ( N =79). CHADSVASc scores were 2.43 +/- 1.34, 1.68 +/- 1.34 and 1.64 +/- 1.38 respectively. The mean left atrial sizes were 42.7 +/- 6.8 mm, 42.0 +/- 6 mm and 41.1 +/- 6.5 mm respectively. The study endpoint was death, acute thromboembolism or major bleeding. There was 1 pericardial effusion (1.2%) in the warfarin group, 1 pericardial effusion and 1 transient ischaemic attack (2.5%) in the rivaroxaban group and 1 pericardial effusion needing drainage (1.6%) in the edoxaban group. There were no significant differences in the study endpoints between groups.
conclusionThis real-world study demonstrated no significant difference in safety and efficacy between uninterrupted edoxaban, warfarin and rivaroxaban in patients undergoing AF/flutter 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.