ReviewArrhythmia & electrophysiology review2022
Economic Evaluation of Catheter Ablation Versus Medical Therapy for the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation from the Perspective of the UK.
Review in Arrhythmia & electrophysiology review, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Cost Utility of Rhythm Control Treatment Sequences in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: Anti-arrhythmic Drugs Versus Catheter Ablation.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Article
- The Global Impact of Atrial Fibrillation.Arrhythmia & electrophysiology review · 2025Review
- Review
- Early rhythm control for atrial fibrillation: looking cost-effective, at least from one direction.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2023Article
- Promising Therapies for Atrial Fibrillation and Ventricular Tachycardia.International journal of molecular sciences · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Randomised evidence supports an early rhythm control strategy as treatment for AF, and catheter ablation outperforms medical therapy in terms of effectiveness when studied as first- and second-line treatment. Despite evidence consistently showing that catheter ablation treatment is superior to medical therapy in most AF patients, only a small proportion receive ablation, in some cases after a prolonged trial of ineffective medical therapy. Health economics research in electrophysiology remains limited but is recognised as being important in influencing positive change to ensure early access to ablation services for all eligible patients. Such information has informed the updated recommendations from the recently published National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical guideline on the diagnosis and management of AF, but increased awareness is needed to drive real-world adoption and to ensure patients are quickly referred to specialists. In this article, economic evaluations of catheter ablation versus medical therapy are reviewed.
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.