SynthesisBMJ open2023
Safety and efficacy of steerable versus non-steerable sheaths for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fluoroless Workflow for Pulsed Field Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation Using the Sphere-9 and VARIPULSE Catheters.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Interplay of Probe Stability and Oscillation During Very-High-Power Short-Duration Ablation in Pulmonary Vein Isolation for Atrial Fibrillation.Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2026Article
- Real-World Impact of Steerable Sheaths for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation Catheter Ablation: The INSIGHT Study.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2025Article
- A simplified single transseptal puncture approach using high-density 3D voltage mapping for atrial fibrillation ablation: acute complications and long-term results.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWith the development of radiofrequency (RF) ablation technology. In recent years, more and more patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) have been treated with RF ablation. Steerable sheaths (SS) have been widely used in RF ablation of AF. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of AF ablation using SS and non-steerable sheaths (NSS).
methodsFrom the beginning to March 2022, we conducted a comprehensive, systematic search of the databases PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library to finish the study. For categorical and continuous data, we used ORs and mean difference to calculate the effect. We also estimated the 95% CI.
resultsFive studies of RF ablation of AF were selected, three prospective and two retrospective, involving 282 SS and 236 NSS ablation patients. The rate of recurrence of AF or atrial arrhythmias was 27.3% versus 42.8% (OR: 0.52, 95% CI 0.36, 0.76, z=3.41, p=0.0006) and acute pulmonary vein (PV) reconnection (8.7% vs 17.4%, OR: 0.47, 95% CI 0.23, 0.95, z=2.10, p=0.04). In the SS group and the NSS group, the total ablation time (p=0.25), fluoroscopy time (p=0.26) and total operative time (p=0.35) were not significantly different.
conclusionsCompared with the use of NSS, the use of SS for RF ablation of AF can effectively reduce the recurrence rate of AF and the occurrence of acute PVs reconnection events. However, there is no advantage in shortening the total RF time, fluoroscopy time, total surgical time and reducing complications.
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.