Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35476249›Full record

Trial reportGeneral thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2022

Multicenter randomized study evaluating the outcome of ganglionated plexi ablation in maze procedure.

Shun-Ichiro Sakamoto, Yosuke Ishii, Toshiaki Otsuka, Masataka Mitsuno, Tomoki Shimokawa, Tadashi Isomura, Hitoshi Yaku, Tatsuhiko Komiya, Goro Matsumiya, Takashi Nitta

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 35% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. A comparative meta-analysis of addition of ganglionic plexus ablation versus no ganglionic plexus ablation to pulmonary vein isolation for atrial fibrillation.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

10 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Shun-Ichiro SakamotoDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, Nippon Medical School, 1-1-5 Sendagi, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8603, Japan. saka-165@nms.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7524-3005
Yosuke IshiiDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, Nippon Medical School, 1-1-5 Sendagi, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8603, Japan.
Toshiaki OtsukaDepartment of Hygiene and Public Health, Nippon Medical School, Tokyo, Japan.
Masataka MitsunoDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, Hyogo College of Medicine, Hyogo, Japan.
Tomoki ShimokawaDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, Teikyo University, Tokyo, Japan.
Tadashi IsomuraDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, IMS Tokyo Katsushika General Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Hitoshi YakuDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan.
Tatsuhiko KomiyaDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, Kurashiki Central Hospital, Okayama, Japan.
Goro MatsumiyaDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine, Chiba, Japan.
Takashi NittaDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, Nippon Medical School, 1-1-5 Sendagi, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8603, Japan.
Nippon Medical School · JPChiba University · JPHyogo Medical University · JPKatsushika Medical Center · JPKurashiki Central Hospital · JPKyoto Prefectural University of Medicine · JPTeikyo University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe benefit of adding ganglionated plexi ablation to the maze procedure remains controversial. This study aims to compare the outcomes of the maze procedure with and without ganglionated plexi ablation.

methodsThis multicenter randomized study included 74 patients with atrial fibrillation associated with structural heart disease. Patients were randomly allocated to the ganglionated plexi ablation group (maze with ganglionated plexi ablation) or the maze group (maze without ganglionated plexi ablation). The lesion sets in the maze procedure were unified in all patients. High-frequency stimulation was applied to clearly identify and perform ganglionated plexi ablation. Patients were followed up for at least 6 months. The primary endpoint was a recurrence of atrial fibrillation.

resultsThe intention-to-treat analysis included 69 patients (34 in the ganglionated plexi ablation group and 35 in the maze group). No surgical mortality was observed in either group. After a mean follow-up period of 16.3 ± 7.9 months, 86.8% of patients in the ganglionated plexi ablation group and 91.4% of those in the maze group did not experience atrial fibrillation recurrence. Kaplan-Meier atrial fibrillation-free curves showed no significant difference between the two groups (P = .685). Cox proportional hazards regression analysis indicated that left atrial dimension was the only risk factor for atrial fibrillation recurrence (hazard ratio: 1.106, 95% confidence interval 1.017-1.024, P = .019).

conclusionThe addition of ganglionated plexi ablation to the maze procedure does not improve early outcome when treating atrial fibrillation associated with structural heart disease.

Indexed as

Atrial FibrillationCatheter AblationHeart DiseasesHumansMaze ProcedureRecurrenceTreatment OutcomeAtrial fibrillationGanglionated plexi ablationMaze procedure

Identifiers

PMID35476249
OpenAlexW4224995351

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.