Observational studyScientific reports2024
Effect of age on clinical impact and mid-term denervation in patients undergoing cardioneuroablation.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cardioneuroablation for Reflex Syncope and Functional Bradyarrhythmias: A State-of-the-Art Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Older age is not an independent predictor of syncope recurrence following cardioneuroablation for reflex syncope.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2026Observational
- Cardioneuroablation for Asystolic Reflex Syncope: How to Identify the Best Candidate and How to Predict Success.Arrhythmia & electrophysiology review · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cardioneuroablation (CNA) represents a promising therapy for recurrent vasovagal syncope (VVS), extrinsically driven atrioventricular block (AVB) and sinus node dysfunction (SND). However, effectiveness in patients aged 50 and above is not well-established. In this prospective study of patients referred for CNA, we compared syncope and pacemaker implantation free survival, heart rate (HR) variability (HRV) and quality of life between two age groups: group A (< 50 years) and B (≥ 50 years). A total of 50 patients were included (17 Group A and 33 Group B). The etiologies comprised VVS (56%), AVB (22%), and SND (22%). After a median follow-up of 17.0 (12.5-26.0) months, there were no differences of the combined endpoint of syncope or pacemaker implantation free-survival between groups (29.4.% vs. 21.2%; p-log-rank = 0.736). 84% of the entire cohort remained free from syncope, with a better but not significant syncope free survival in the older group (23.5% vs. 12.1%; p-log rank = 0.486). There were no differences in pacemaker implantation rate (A 5.9% vs. B 17.6%; p log-rank = 0.658). Notably, older patients had lower HR values post-procedure compared to younger patients (68.9 ± 13.3 vs. 80.4 ± 16.3 bpm; p = 0.012). Both groups exhibited a decrease in HRV parameters and an improvement in quality of life. In conclusion, CNA has comparable clinical benefits for patients aged 50 and above in terms of syncope or pacemaker implantation free survival and HRV reduction when compared to younger patients.
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.