ArticleCardiology journal2024
Repeat cryoablation as a redo procedure for atrial fibrillation ablation: Is it a good choice?
Article in Cardiology journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02785991 (Prospective Observational Study of Pulmonary Vein Cryoablation in Subjects With Atrial Fibrillation), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
Prospective Observational Study of Pulmonary Vein Cryoablation in Subjects With Atrial Fibrillation (AF) in Spain
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recurrence of Atrial Fibrillation After Repeat Catheter Ablation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Acta Cardiologica Sinica · 2026Article
- Repeat ablation of atrial fibrillation using electrogram dispersion to identify additional areas of mechanistic significance.Heart rhythm O2 · 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAblation of atrial fibrillation (AF), both cryoablation ablation (CBA) and radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA), have demonstrated to be safe and effective. About 1 in 3 patients may face a redo due to recurrence and the best technique is unknown. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy of CBA as a repeat procedure in patients with prior CBA or RFCA.
methodsA nation-wide CBA registry (RECABA) was analyzed and patients were compared who had previously undergone CBA (Prior-CB) or RFCA (Prior-RF). The primary endpoint was AF recurrence at 12 months after a 3-month blanking period. A survival analysis was performed, univariate and multivariate Cox models were also built.
resultsSeventy-four patients were included. Thirty-three (44.6%) were in the Prior-CB group and 41 (55.4%) in the Prior-RF. There were more reconnected pulmonary veins in the Prior-RF than in Prior-CB group (40.4% vs.16.5%, p = 0.0001). The 12-month Kaplan-Meier estimate of freedom from AF recurrence after the blanking period was 61.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 41.4-75.8%) in the Prior-CB, and 89.2% (95% CI 73.6-95.9%) in the Prior-RF group (p = 0.002). Multivariate Cox regression pointed Prior-CB as the sole independent predictor of AF recurrence, with an adjusted HR of 2.67 (95% CI 1.05-6.79).
conclusionsRepeat CBA shows higher rates of AF recurrences compared to CBA after a previous RFCA despite presenting less reconnected veins at the procedure. These data suggest that patients with AF recurrence after CBA may benefit from other ablation techniques after a recurrence. RECABA is registered at clinicaltrials.gov with the Unique Identifier NCT02785991.
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.