ArticleHeart and vessels2025
Efficacy and safety of atrial fibrillation ablation in patients with aged 80 years or older.
Article in Heart and vessels, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Outcomes of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in octogenarians: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2026Article
- Real-world clinical outcomes after cardiac resynchronization therapy in cardiac sarcoidosis.Heart and vessels · 2026Article
- Clinical outcomes after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in elderly patients: a meta-analysis with time-to-event data reconstruction.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2026Review
- Same-day discharge after electrophysiological and cardiac implantable electronic device procedures: a clinical consensus statement of the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) and the Association of Cardiovascular Nursing & Allied Professions (ACNAP) of the ESC.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2026Review
- How to demonstrate feasibility and efficacy of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in elderly patients.Heart and vessels · 2025Article
- Efficacy and safety of atrial fibrillation ablation in patients with aged 80 years or older. Letter to the editor (response to Kataoka N, et al.).Heart and vessels · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia observed in the elderly. Its prevalence rises with age, particularly in individuals over 80 years old. While catheter ablation has emerged as a first line therapy for the patients with symptomatic AF, evidence on its application in elderly patients remains controversial. This study aimed to assess safety and efficacy outcomes of AF ablation in patients aged ≥ 80 years. Consecutive 1327 patients who underwent a first pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) for AF were retrospectively analyzed. Patients aged ≥ 80 years (elderly group, n = 107) were compared with patients aged < 80 years (younger group, n = 1220). At 1-year follow-up, there was no significant difference in AF free rate between the elderly and the younger group (72.0% vs. 73.9%, P = 0.786). Regarding major complications, the elderly patients had a greater incidence of periprocedural stroke (1.9% vs. 0.1%, P = 0.018). The rates of cardiac tamponade, phrenic palsy, and vascular complications were not significantly different between the 2 groups. PVI for AF is effective in patients aged ≥ 80 years with a similar success rate, but periprocedural stoke risk was higher compared to the younger population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39259229What 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.