Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37698564›Full record

Trial reportJAMA2023

Atrial Fibrillation Catheter Ablation vs Medical Therapy and Psychological Distress: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Ahmed M Al-Kaisey, Ramanathan Parameswaran, Christina Bryant, Robert D Anderson, Joshua Hawson, David Chieng, Louise Segan, Aleksandr Voskoboinik, Hariharan Sugumar, Geoffrey R Wong and 10 more

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
14.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 65 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. PVI-SHAM-AF: what does this trial tell us about catheter ablation and symptoms in patients with atrial fibrillation?Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Ahmed M Al-KaiseyDepartment of Cardiology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Ramanathan ParameswaranDepartment of Cardiology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Christina BryantMelbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Robert D AndersonDepartment of Cardiology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Joshua HawsonDepartment of Cardiology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
David ChiengHeart Centre, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Louise SeganHeart Centre, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Aleksandr VoskoboinikHeart Centre, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Hariharan SugumarHeart Centre, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Geoffrey R WongDepartment of Cardiology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Sue FinchSchool of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Stephen A JosephDepartment of Cardiology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Alex McLellanDepartment of Cardiology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Liang-Han LingHeart Centre, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Joseph MortonDepartment of Cardiology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Paul SparksDepartment of Cardiology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Prashanthan SandersCentre for Heart Rhythm Disorders, South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, University of Adelaide and Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Geoffrey LeeDepartment of Cardiology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Peter M KistlerDepartment of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Jonathan M KalmanDepartment of Cardiology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
The Royal Melbourne Hospital · AUUniversity of Melbourne · AUBaker Heart and Diabetes Institute · AUThe Alfred Hospital · AUUniversity of Adelaide · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The impact of atrial fibrillation (AF) catheter ablation on mental health outcomes is not well understood. Objective: To determine whether AF catheter ablation is associated with greater improvements in markers of psychological distress compared with medical therapy alone. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Randomized Evaluation of the Impact of Catheter Ablation on Psychological Distress in Atrial Fibrillation (REMEDIAL) study was a randomized trial of symptomatic participants conducted in 2 AF centers in Australia between June 2018 and March 2021. Interventions: Participants were randomized to receive AF catheter ablation (n = 52) or medical therapy (n = 48). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) score at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included follow-up assessments of prevalence of severe psychological distress (HADS score >15), anxiety HADS score, depression HADS score, and Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) score. Arrhythmia recurrence and AF burden data were also analyzed. Results: A total of 100 participants were randomized (mean age, 59 [12] years; 31 [32%] women; 54% with paroxysmal AF). Successful pulmonary vein isolation was achieved in all participants in the ablation group. The combined HADS score was lower in the ablation group vs the medical group at 6 months (8.2 [5.4] vs 11.9 [7.2]; P = .006) and at 12 months (7.6 [5.3] vs 11.8 [8.6]; between-group difference, -4.17 [95% CI, -7.04 to -1.31]; P = .005). Similarly, the prevalence of severe psychological distress was lower in the ablation group vs the medical therapy group at 6 months (14.2% vs 34%; P = .02) and at 12 months (10.2% vs 31.9%; P = .01), as was the anxiety HADS score at 6 months (4.7 [3.2] vs 6.4 [3.9]; P = .02) and 12 months (4.5 [3.3] vs 6.6 [4.8]; P = .02); the depression HADS score at 3 months (3.7 [2.6] vs 5.2 [4.0]; P = .047), 6 months (3.4 [2.7] vs 5.5 [3.9]; P = .004), and 12 months (3.1 [2.6] vs 5.2 [3.9]; P = .004); and the BDI-II score at 6 months (7.2 [6.1] vs 11.5 [9.0]; P = .01) and 12 months (6.6 [7.2] vs 10.9 [8.2]; P = .01). The median (IQR) AF burden in the ablation group was lower than in the medical therapy group (0% [0%-3.22%] vs 15.5% [1.0%-45.9%]; P < .001). Conclusion and Relevance: In this trial of participants with symptomatic AF, improvement in psychological symptoms of anxiety and depression was observed with catheter ablation, but not medical therapy. Trial Registration: ANZCTR Identifier: ACTRN12618000062224.

Indexed as

Anti-Arrhythmia AgentsAtrial FibrillationCatheter AblationPsychological DistressAgedAnxietyAnxiety DisordersDepressionFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedAnti-Arrhythmia Agents

Identifiers

PMID37698564
PMCPMC10498333
OpenAlexW4386624386

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.