SynthesisClinical cardiology2024
Ablation versus medical therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation: An updated meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical cardiology, 2024. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ablation versus medical therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation: An updated meta-analysis.Clinical cardiology · 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
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To investigate the effect of ablation compared to medical therapy on clinical outcomes of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched using ablation, medical treatment, AF, and related words. The effect of ablation and medical therapy was sought to be gathered on stroke or transitional ischemic attack, mortality, hospitalization, recurrence of AF, progression of AF, and left ventricular ejection fraction. Analyses were performed using R software. 31 studies (the results of 27 randomized controlled trials), compromising an overall 6965 patients (Ablation, n = 3643; Medical treatment, n = 3322) were reviewed in our study, revealed that catheter ablation would result in substantial benefits for patients with AF without significant difference in serious adverse events compared to medical management (Risk Ratio: 0.92, [95% Confidence Interval (CI), 0.64-1.33]). Catheter ablation in patients with AF significantly resulted in a 29% reduction in all-cause mortality (RR: 0.71, [95% CI, 0.57-0.88]), a 57% reduction in hospitalization (RR: 0.43, [95% CI, 0.27-0.67]), a 53% reduction in AF recurrence (RR: 0.47, [95% CI, 0.36-0.61]), and a dramatic reduction, 89%, in progression of paroxysmal to persistent AF (RR: 0.11, [95% CI, 0.02-0.65]); also associated with a remarkable improvement in their left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (Mean Difference, MD: 6.84%, [95% CI, 3.27-10.42]) compared to medical therapy. Our study showed that ablation may be superior to medical therapy in patients with AF regarding AF recurrence, mortality, LVEF improvement, hospitalization, and AF progression outcomes.
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.