ReviewHerzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie2024
[Initial ablation of atrial fibrillation-Is pulmonary vein isolation sufficient? : Pro and contra].
Review in Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is currently the gold standard for the ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF). Although this procedure shows good success rates, the recurrence rates after PVI alone are significantly higher in advanced AF and in the presence of comorbidities. Therefore, it is important to consider additional arrhythmogenic mechanisms outside the pulmonary veins, depending on the individual case, in order to improve the patients' outcome.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39331144What 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.