ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Comparing Efficacy and Safety in Catheter Ablation Strategies for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Atrial fibrillation: from pathogenesis to novel treatment options.Molecular biomedicine · 2025Review
- Optimized workflow for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation ablation using very high power short duration.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Discovery ofBiology · 2023Article
- Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Structural Heart Disease: A Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
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 at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although catheter ablation (CA) is an established treatment for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF), there is no consensus regarding the most efficient CA strategy. The objective of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the efficacy and safety of different CA strategies for PAF. A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, and CENTRAL until the final search date, 5 October 2020. Randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing different CA strategies and methods for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) were included. Efficacy was defined as lack of arrhythmia recurrence after CA and safety as any reported complication related to the procedure during a minimum follow-up time of six months. In total, 43 RCTs comparing 11 different CA strategies involving 6701 patients were included. The risk of recurrence was significantly decreased in comparison with PVI with radiofrequency only for the following treatments: PVI with adjuvant ablation (RR: 0.79, CI: 0.65-0.97) and PVI with sympathetic modulation (RR: 0.64, CI: 0.46-0.88). However, PVI with radiofrequency was superior to non-PVI strategies (RR: 1.65, CI: 1.2-2.26). No statistically significant difference was found in safety between different CA strategies. Concerning different PVI strategies, no difference was observed either in efficacy or in safety between tested strategies. This NMA suggests that different PVI strategies are generally similar in terms of efficacy, while PVI with additional ablation or sympathetic modulation may be more effective than PVI alone. This study provides decision-makers with insights into the efficacy and safety of different CA strategies.
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.