ReviewDiseases (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Contact Force-Guided versus Contact Force-Blinded Cavo-Tricuspid Isthmus Ablation for Atrial Flutter: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Diseases (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Contact force (CF) is a novel approach developed to increase the safety and efficacy of catheter ablation. However, the value of CF-sensing technology for atrial flutter (AFL) cavo-tricuspid isthmus ablation (CTIA) is inconclusive. To generate a comprehensive assessment of optimal extant data on CF for AFL, we synthesized randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies from Web of Science, SCOPUS, EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane until 29 November 2022, using the odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with a corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Two RCTs and three observational studies with a total of 376 patients were included in our analysis. CF-guided ablation was associated with (A) a higher rate of AFL recurrence (OR: 2.26 with 95% CI [1.05, 4.87]) and total CF (MD: 2.71 with 95% CI [1.28, 4.13]); (B) no effect on total procedure duration (MD: -2.88 with 95% CI [-7.48, 1.72]), fluoroscopy duration (MD: -0.96 with 95% CI [-2.24, 0.31]), and bidirectional isthmus block (BDIB) (OR: 1.50 with 95% CI [0.72, 3.11]); and (C) decreased radiofrequency (RF) duration (MD: -1.40 with 95% CI [-2.39, -0.41]). We conclude that although CF-guided CTIA was associated with increased AFL recurrence and total CF and reduced RF duration, it did not affect total procedure duration, fluoroscopy duration, or BDIB. Thus, CF-guided CTIA may not be the optimal intervention for AFL. These findings indicate the need for (A) providers to balance the benefits and risks of CF when utilizing precision medicine to develop treatment plans for individuals with AFL and (B) clinical trials investigating CF-guided catheter ablation for AFL to provide definitive evidence of optimal CF-sensing technology.
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.