SynthesisPloS one2022
The comparison of catheter ablation on hard outcomes versus medical treatment for atrial fibrillation patients: A meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials with trial sequential analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Catheter ablation versus medical therapy in atrial fibrillation: an umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2024Pooled it
- Ablation versus medical therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation: An updated meta-analysis.Clinical cardiology · 2024Pooled it
- Percutaneous Treatment Approaches in Atrial Fibrillation: Current Landscape and Future Perspectives.Biomedicines · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe prevailing view is that ablation does not reduce the incidence of stroke and deaths in atrial fibrillation (AF), and guidelines suggest that long-term anticoagulation is required after ablation, regardless of the success of the procedure. We performed a meta-analysis of recent randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) to verify whether ablation compared with drugs reduced the incidence of stroke and deaths.
methodsWe systematically searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for RCTs of AF catheter ablation (CA) compared to medical therapy (MT). The risk ratio (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% CIs were calculated using a random-effects model. A trial sequential analysis (TSA) was used to further validate the reliability of the primary outcomes.
resultsSeventeen RCTs were included, comprising 5,258 patients (CA, n = 2760; MT, n = 2498). Compared with medical therapy, CA was associated with a reduction in stroke/transient ischaemic attacks (TIAs) (p = 0.035; RR = 0.61 [95% CI, 0.386 to 0.965]; I2 = 0.0%) and deaths (p = 0.004; RR = 0.7 [95% CI, 0.55 to 0.89]; I2 = 0.0%). CA was associated with improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (p = 0.000; WMD = 5.39 [95% CI, 2.45 to 8.32]; I2 = 84.4%) and the rate of maintenance of sinus rhythm (SR) (p = 0.000; RR = 3.55 [95% CI, 2.34 to 5.40]; I2 = 76.7%).
conclusionsCA for AF had more favourable outcomes in terms of stroke/TIAs, deaths, change in LVEF, and the maintenance of SR at the end of follow-up compared to MT. Besides, the TSA results supported this conclusion.
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.