ReviewThe Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management2024
Comparative Analysis of Clinical Outcomes of High-power, Short-duration Ablation versus Low-power, Long-duration Ablation Strategy in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: A Comprehensive Umbrella Review of Meta-analyses.
Review in The Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management, 2024. 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.
- High-power, very-high-power, and low-power radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation: A Bayesian network meta-analysis.Heart rhythm O2 · 2026Article
- Pulsed-Field Ablation Versus Radiofrequency Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of arrhythmia · 2025Review
- Letter from the Editor in Chief.The Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management · 2024Article
- Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: Low-power, Long-duration Versus High-power, Short-duration.The Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Atrial fibrillation (AF) affects around 33 million people worldwide, rendering it a common cardiac arrhythmia. Catheter ablation (CA) has evolved as a leading therapeutic intervention for symptomatic AF. This umbrella review systematically evaluates existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses to assess the safety, efficacy, and potential of high-power, short-duration (HPSD) ablation as an alternative therapy option for AF. A thorough exploration was undertaken across PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify pertinent studies for inclusion in this umbrella review. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) method was employed to assess the overall certainty of the evidence comprehensively, and the quality of the incorporated reviews was meticulously evaluated through use of the AMSTAR 2 tool, the Cochrane Collaboration tool, and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. In this study, we initially identified 35 systematic reviews and meta-analyses, narrowing them down to a final selection of 11 studies, which collectively integrated data from 6 randomized controlled trials and 26 observational studies. For primary efficacy outcomes, the HPSD approach led to a non-significant decrease in the risk of atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence (risk ratio [RR], 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-1.12;
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.