SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2024
The safety and efficacy of third- and fourth-generation cryoballoons for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: An increasing number of studies have shown that third (CB3)- and fourth-generation cryoballoons (CB4) have been used to treat various types of atrial fibrillation (AF), but previous research regarding the safety and efficacy of CB3 or CB4 ablation remains controversial. Therefore, a meta-analysis was performed to further evaluate the safety and efficacy of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) using the CB3 and CB4 in the treatment of AF. Methods: We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, China Science and Technology Journal Database, and Clinicaltrials.gov up to December 2023 for qualified trials and data extraction according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. All analyses were carried out using Review Manager 5.3 software. Results: The meta-analysis included 13 observational studies consisting of 3,281 subjects and did not include a randomized controlled trial. Overall analyses indicated that the CB3 significantly reduced total procedure time [weighted mean difference (WMD) = -8.69 min, 95% confidence interval (CI) = -15.45 to -1.94 min, I Conclusion: These findings demonstrated that the CB3 and CB4 tended to be more effective than the CB2 in the treatment of AF, with shorter procedure times, more PVI recording, and similar safety endpoints.
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.