ReviewCureus2022
Comparison of Interrupted and Uninterrupted Anticoagulation Therapy for Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Catheter Ablation: A Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of short-term efficacy of two bipolar radiofrequency ablation forceps for rheumatic heart disease concomitant with atrial fibrillation.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Adequate periprocedural anticoagulation is important to prevent complications like transient ischemic attack, stroke, severe esophageal injury, and pulmonary vein stenosis. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare uninterrupted anticoagulation therapy with interrupted anticoagulation therapy for patients with arrhythmias undergoing catheter ablation. The current meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Several online databases were searched, such as PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase, to search for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcome included thromboembolic events. Secondary outcomes included major bleeding events and minor bleeding events. A total of eight RCTs were included in the current meta-analysis, encompassing a total of 3893 patients. No significant differences were reported in relation to thromboembolic events (RR: 2.39, 95% CI: 0.41-13.97, p-value: 0.33), major bleeding events (RR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.50-1.96, p-value: 0.98) and minor bleeding events (RR: 1.55, 95% CI: 0.56-4.30, p-value: 0.40) between the two study groups. This meta-analysis did not find any conclusive evidence for the absence of any difference between the two 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.