ReviewCureus2023
The Effectiveness of Ablation Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07604727 (AV Nodal Ablation With Conduction System Pacing Versus Cardiac Resynchronization for Symptomatic Heart Failure Patients With Atrial Fibrillation), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
AV Nodal Ablation With Conduction System Pacing Versus Cardiac Resynchronization for Symptomatic Heart Failure Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: The APAF-CSP All-cause Mortality and Quality of Life Trial
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Same-Day Discharge After Atrial Fibrillation Ablation. A Scoping Review of Nurse-Led Care Model.Health science reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is expected that the prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF), the most prevalent cardiac arrhythmia among people aged 65 to 85, would be mostly classified using the CHAS2DS2-VASc approach for anticoagulation therapy. A high number of people in the entire world will be living with AF by 2030. Long-term follow-up data are sparse, although radiofrequency catheter ablation (CA) for symptomatic AF patients has the potential to be a curative therapy. Although women are referred later and less often than men, the outcomes following ablation are comparable across both genders. Health-related quality of life suffers from AF, and patients often find themselves less active as a result of their condition. AF may have a wide variety of symptoms and signs from the clinic's point of view. Women are more likely to exhibit symptoms than men; one reason for this is that women have an average QT interval that is 10-20 milliseconds longer than men, which is more likely to exacerbate tachycardia symptoms. In search of medical databases for relevant medical literature, we looked at PubMed/Medline, the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar. Ten publications were gathered after the papers were located, assessed, and qualifying criteria applied were used to select them. The finished articles were done to give an overview of the effectiveness of ablation therapy for AF. Some studies showed that there was no statistical significance between invasive and pharmacological treatments. Other research found no difference in the recurrence of atrial arrhythmia between pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) CA alone and PVI + enhancement magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided fibrosis ablation in individuals with persistent AF. The oldest individuals in studies comparing CA to medical treatment for AF demonstrated no improvement in prognosis after CA. Also, complications from therapy and CA's efficacy in preventing future atrial arrhythmias were similarly low across all age groups. Based on the above, we concluded that more studies are required to establish the most effective approach to treating AF to apply it in daily practice and gain more knowledge about it.
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.