ReviewFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2023
Bayesian network meta-analysis comparing hot balloon, laser balloon and cryoballoon ablation as initial therapies for atrial fibrillation.
Review in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Silent cerebral lesions after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation using cryoballoon, hotballoon, laserballoon and radiofrequency catheters: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2024Pooled it
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
Background: Balloon-based catheter ablation (CA) technologies, including hot balloon ablation (HBA), laser balloon ablation (LBA) and cryoballoon ablation (CBA) have been introduced in recent years as alternatives to conventional radiofrequency ablation therapy for atrial fibrillation (AF). However, the results remain controversial concerning the optimal approach. Thus, we conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA) to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy and safety of HBA, LBA and CBA. Methods: Clinical trials comparing the efficacy and safety of HBA, LBA and CBA were identified through a systematic search up to October 2022. The primary outcomes of interest were the recurrence of AF and procedure-related complications. Results: Twenty clinical trials with a total of 1,995 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The NMA results demonstrated that HBA, LBA and CBA had comparable AF recurrence rates (HBA vs. CBA: odds ratio OR = 0.88, 95% credible interval CrI: 0.56-1.4; LBA vs. CBA: OR = 1.1, 95% CrI: 0.75-1.5; LBA vs. HBA: OR = 1.2, 95% CrI: 0.70-2.0) and procedure-related complications (HBA vs. CBA: OR = 0.93, 95% CrI: 0.46-2.3; LBA vs. CBA: OR = 1.1, 95% CrI: 0.63-2.1; LBA vs. HBA: OR = 1.2, 95% CrI: 0.44-2.8). The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) suggested that HBA may be the optimal approach concerning the primary outcomes (SUCRA = 74.4%; 61.1%, respectively). However, HBA (40.1%) had a significantly higher incidence of touch-up ablation (TUA) than LBA (8.5%, OR = 2.8, 95% CrI: 1.1-7.1) and CBA (11.9%, OR = 3.7, 95% CrI: 1.9-7.5). LBA required more procedure time than CBA [mean difference (MD = 32.0 min, 95% CrI: 19.0-45.0 min)] and HBA (MD = 26.0 min, 95% CrI: 5.6-45.0 min), but less fluoroscopy time than HBA (MD = -9.4 min, 95% CrI: -17.0--2.4 min). Conclusions: HBA, LBA and CBA had comparable efficacy and safety as initial treatments for AF. HBA ranked highest in the primary outcomes, but at the cost of a higher incidence of TUA and longer fluoroscopy time. Systematic Review Registration: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022381954, identifier: CRD42022381954.
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.