Trial reportBMC cardiovascular disorders2024
Comparison between catheter ablation versus permanent pacemaker implantation as an initial treatment for tachycardia-bradycardia syndrome patients: a prospective, randomized trial.
Trial report in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
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.
- Comparison of clinical outcomes between catheter ablation and permanent pacemaker implantation in Tachycardia-Bradycardia Syndrome patients: a meta-analysis.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinical outcomes after catheter ablation (CA) or pacemaker (PM) implantation for the tachycardia-bradycardia syndrome (TBS) has not been evaluated adequately. We tried to compare the efficacy and safety outcomes of CA and PM implantation as an initial treatment option for TBS in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) patients.
methodsSixty-eight patients with paroxysmal AF and TBS (mean 63.7 years, 63.2% male) were randomized, and received CA (n = 35) or PM (n = 33) as initial treatments. The primary outcomes were unexpected emergency room visits or hospitalizations attributed to cardiovascular causes.
resultsIn the intention-to-treatment analysis, the rates of primary outcomes were not significantly different between the two groups at the 2-year follow-up (19.8% vs. 25.9%; hazard ratio (HR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25-2.20, P = 0.584), irrespective of whether the results were adjusted for age (HR 1.12, 95% CI 0.34-3.64, P = 0.852). The 2-year rate of recurrent AF was significantly lower in the CA group compared to the PM group (33.9% vs. 56.8%, P = 0.038). Four patients (11.4%) in the CA group finally received PMs after CA owing to recurrent syncope episodes. The rate of major or minor procedure related complications was not significantly different between the two groups.
conclusionCA had a similar efficacy and safety profile with that of PM and a higher sinus rhythm maintenance rate. CA could be considered as a preferable initial treatment option over PM implantation in patients with paroxysmal AF and TBS.
trial registrationKCT0000155.
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.