Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35258637›Full record

ReviewHerz2022

Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: impact on mortality, morbidity, quality of life, and implications for the future.

Patrick Dilk, Rolf Wachter, Gerhard Hindricks

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Herz, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 36% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Patrick DilkClinic and Policlinic for Cardiology, University Hospital Leipzig, Strümpellstr. 39, 04289, Leipzig, Germany. patrick.dilk@helios-gesundheit.de.
Rolf WachterClinic and Policlinic for Cardiology, University Hospital Leipzig, Strümpellstr. 39, 04289, Leipzig, Germany.
Gerhard HindricksDepartment of Electrophysiology, Heart Centre Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
University Hospital Leipzig · DELeipzig Heart Institute · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the advances in technologies and techniques in the field of catheter ablation for cardiac arrhythmias, it is estimated that the prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) will further increase in the nearest future. The latest trials have proven the beneficial effect on mortality after pulmonary vein isolation in patients with impaired left ventricular function, while no such effect has been seen in patients without left ventricular dysfunction. This raises the question of whether catheter ablation for AF is still suited for the latter patient cohort or whether the endpoint of mortality is not adequate enough. Not only does pulmonary vein isolation reduce the burden of atrial fibrillation, but it also somehow alters the patients' perception of it in the case of recurrence. Independent of the presence of ventricular dysfunction, patients experience a relief of AF-related symptoms, which is accompanied by an increase in quality of life based on the available patient-reported outcome measures, despite AF recurrence. Trials that are currently recruiting patients seek to unveil the accountable circumstances for these remaining uncertainties and help expand our understanding of a procedure that has been routinely performed for two decades.

Indexed as

Atrial FibrillationCatheter AblationPulmonary VeinsHumansMorbidityQuality of LifeRecurrenceTreatment OutcomeArrhythmiaHealth-related quality of lifeHeart failurePulmonary vein isolationTreatment

Identifiers

PMID35258637
PMCPMC8902845
OpenAlexW4220713359

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.