ReviewIn vivo (Athens, Greece)
Stereotactic Arrhythmia Radioablation (STAR): A Multidisciplinary Narrative Minireview of Preclinical Studies.
Review in In vivo (Athens, Greece). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this narrative review of the literature was to collect and analyze the results of the published preclinical studies on stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation (STAR) in the treatment of refractory cardiac arrhythmias. A literature search was conducted on PubMed using the following terms: ("stereotactic" OR "SBRT" OR "SABR" OR "radioablation" OR "radiosurgery") AND ("arrhythmia" OR "tachycardia"). Preclinical and pathological reports published in English without time limit, comprising studies of STAR in animal models and histological analyzes of explanted animal and human hearts were included. The analyzed studies confirm that doses lower than 25 Gy seem to produce sub-optimal therapeutic results whereas doses >35 Gy are less safe in terms of radiation-induced toxicity. However, long-term results (>1 year) are still missing and reporting outcomes based on low dose irradiation (≤15 Gy). Finally, STAR proved to be an effective therapy in the analyzed studies despite the irradiation of rather different cardiac targets. Therefore, additional studies are needed to: 1) compare the outcomes of STAR at doses of 25 Gy versus 30 Gy; 2) evaluate the long-term results (>1 year) in animal models irradiated at doses similar to those used in the clinic; 3) define the optimal target.
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.