ArticleAging and disease2024
Index and Repeat Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Older versus Younger Patients: A Propensity-Score Matching Analysis.
Article in Aging and disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Utilization and complications of catheter ablation therapy for cardiac arrhythmias in congenital heart disease: a retrospective cross-sectional study.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Prediction of Recurrence of Atrial Fibrillation After Radiofrequency Ablation by Frailty.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2025Article
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
Catheter ablation is a well-established rhythm control therapy in atrial fibrillation (AF). Although the prevalence of AF increases dramatically with age, the prognosis and safety profile of index and repeat ablation procedures remain unclear in the older population. The primary endpoint of this study was to assess the arrhythmia recurrence, reablation and complication rates in older patients. Secondary endpoints were the identification of independent predictors of arrhythmia recurrence and reablation, including information on pulmonary vein (PV) reconnection and other atrial foci. Older (n=129, ≥70 years) and younger (n=129, <70 years) patients were compared using a propensity-score matching analysis based on age, gender, obesity, hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes mellitus, dilated left atrium, severe obstructive sleep apnea, cardiac disease, left systolic ventricular function, AF pattern and ablation technique. Arrhythmia recurrence and reablation were evaluated in both groups using a Cox regression analysis in order to identify predictors. During a 30-month follow-up period, there were no significant differences between older and younger patients in the arrhythmia-free survival (65.1% and 59.7%; log-rank test p=0.403) and complication (10.1% and 10.9%; p>0.999) rates after the index ablation. However, the reablation rate was significantly different (46.7% and 69.2%; p<0.05, respectively). In those patients who underwent reablation procedure (redo subgroups), there were no differences in the incidence of PV reconnection (38.1% redo-older and 27.8% redo-younger patients; p=0.556). However, the redo-older patients had lower reconnected PVs per patient (p<0.01) and lower atrial foci (2.3 and 3.7; p<0.01) than the redo-younger patients. A further important finding was that age was not an independent predictor of arrhythmia recurrence or reablation. Our data reveal that the AF index ablation in older patients had a similar efficacy and safety profile to younger patients. Therefore, age alone must not be considered a prognostic factor for AF ablation but the presence of limiting factors such as frailty and multiple comorbidities.
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.