ArticleScientific reports2024
Ablation therapy following unsuccessful electrical cardioversion in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Electrical cardioversion (ECV) a widely utilized intervention for persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) aimed at restoring sinus rhythm. However, ECV can be ineffective, raising questions about subsequent treatment options. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of non-ablation therapy versus ablation therapy following unsuccessful ECV. A total of 125 consecutive patients with persistent AF who underwent unsuccessful ECV between November 2017 and August 2023 was included in this retrospective analysis. Of these, 51.2% received only medical therapy (non-ablation therapy group, n = 64), while 48.8% underwent AF ablation (ablation therapy group, n = 61). Various ablation methods were employed, including catheter and thoracoscopic ablation. Ablation therapy was associated with significantly better AF-free survival compared to non-ablation therapy [hazard ratio (HR), 0.37; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22-0.61; p < 0.01]. There was no difference of AF-free survival between catheter ablation and thoracoscopic ablation groups (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.34-1.83; p = 0.58). AF duration > 5 year (HR 1.51; 95% CI 0.930-2.437; p = 0.10), BMI ≤ 25 kg/m
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.