Trial reportJournal of cardiovascular electrophysiology2024
Costs, efficiency, and patient-reported outcomes associated with suture-mediated percutaneous closure for atrial fibrillation ablation: Secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Costs, efficiency, and patient-reported outcomes associated with suture-mediated percutaneous closure for atrial fibrillation ablation: Secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2024Trial
- Safety and Efficacy of Two Venous Closure Devices Compared With Manual Compression After Atrial Fibrillation Ablation.Journal of arrhythmia · 2026Article
- Vascular closure devices in electrophysiology procedures: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Heart rhythm O2 · 2026Article
- Efficacy and Safety of Venous Closure Devices for Femoral Venous Access in Interventional Cardiology: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
- [Use of suture closure systems in interventional electrophysiology : Impact on workflows, resource utilization, reimbursement, and patient safety in hospitals in the STYLE AF study].Herzschrittmachertherapie & Elektrophysiologie · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionTo evaluate the cost and efficiency of suture-mediated percutaneous closure (SMC) compared to manual compression (MC) after atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. SMC has been demonstrated to be efficacious in reducing hemostasis and bedrest times after AF ablation. To date, randomized data comparing the direct and indirect cost between the two techniques have not been described.
methodsWe conducted a 1:1 randomized trial comparing SMC to MC following AF ablation. The primary endpoints have been previously published. However, secondary endpoints pertinent to indirect cost including complication rates, hospital utilization (i.e., delays in discharge, additional patient encounters, nursing utilization), pain, patient reported outcomes, as well as the direct costs of care associated with AF ablation were collected. We also performed secondary analysis of the primary endpoint to evaluate for a learning curve, and subgroups analysis comparing efficacy across different numbers of access sites and compared to those in the MC group with a figure-of-eight suture (Fo8), that could potentially have impacted the relative efficiency of the procedure.
resultsA total of 107 patients were randomized and included: 53 in the SMC group and 54 in MC. A learning curve was observed in the SMC group between the first and second half of the study group (p = 0.037), with no such difference in the MC group. After accounting for the number of access sites, time to hemostasis remained shorter in the SMC Group (p = 0.002). Compared to those in the Fo8 arm (n = 37), the time to hemostasis remained shorter in the SMC group (p = 0.001). Among those planned for same-day discharge, there were more delays in the MC group (31.5% vs. 11.3%, p = 0.0144). Rates of major and minor complications were similar between SMC and MC groups at discharge (p = 0.243) and 30 days (p = 1.00), as were nursing utilization, self-reported pain, and overall patient reported outcomes. The overall cost of care related to the procedure was similar between the MC and SMC groups ($56 533.65 [$45 699.47, $66 987.64] vs. $57 050.44 [$47 251.40, $66 426.34], p = 0.601).
conclusionSMC has been shown to decrease time to hemostasis and ambulation and facilitate earlier same-day discharge after AF ablation without an increase in direct or indirect costs.
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.