ReviewCureus2024
Radiofrequency Ablation, Cryotherapy Ablation, or Pulsed-Field Ablation to Treat Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation Unresponsive to Pharmacological Treatments: Interpreting Efficacy Through Reconstruction of Individual Patient Data From Randomized Trials.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Atrial Fibrillation Risk Management and Emerging Therapies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Radiofrequency or cryoablation or medical therapy for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: An indirect comparison of effectiveness.Journal of arrhythmia · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Three techniques of catheter ablation (CA; radiofrequency, cryoballoon, and pulsed-field ablation) are available to treat patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) who do not adequately respond to pharmacological treatments. Our study was aimed at comparing these techniques based on the data of randomized studies because these are considered the best sources of efficacy data. After selecting pertinent trials, our analysis studied the time-to-event data published for these three techniques. An artificial intelligence method was used that reconstructs individual patient data from the Kaplan-Meier curves. The endpoint was an arrhythmia recurrence. A preliminary heterogeneity analysis was performed. Then, our main analysis was based on individual patient data reconstructed from Kaplan-Meier graphs. The hazard ratio (HR) was its main parameter. Three randomized trials were included. Our heterogeneity analysis confirmed an acceptable level of between-trial heterogeneity that allowed us to pool the curves from the different trials; however, cryoballoon ablation with a two-minute duration fared worse than the other techniques. Then, our main analysis estimated the following values of HR: pulsed-field ablation versus radiofrequency ablation, 0.549 (95%CI, 0.413-0.730; p<0.001); pulsed-field ablation versus cryoballoon ablation, 0.478 (95%CI, 0.364-0.633); radiofrequency ablation versus cryoballoon ablation, HR=0.871 (95%CI, 0.585-1.295; p=0.506). In conclusion, radiofrequency ablation and cryoballoon ablation showed similar effectiveness (except for the two-minute cryoballoon ablation, which fared worse). Our results showing the superiority of pulsed-field ablation versus thermal ablation must be interpreted with caution because the patients given pulsed-field ablation were limited, and their follow-up was shorter than that of patients receiving thermal ablation.
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.