ArticleThe British journal of cardiology2024
Cardioversion versus ablation versus 'pace and ablate' for persistent atrial fibrillation in older patients.
Article in The British journal of cardiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Repeat catheter ablation vs. direct current cardioversion for recurrent atrial fibrillation after prior ablation: a propensity-matched analysis.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 · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Our objective was to compare the efficacy of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation versus permanent pacemaker (PPM) with atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) versus direct current cardioversion (DCCV) for persistent AF in patients ≥65 years old. Seventy-seven patients (aged 66-86, mean 75.4 years) with persistent AF were randomised (1:1:1) to AF ablation + amiodarone (± DCCV), PPM with AVNA (+DCCV) or DCCV + amiodarone. The primary end point was persistent AF recurrence, measured with an implanted cardiac monitor or PPM. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) was performed at baseline and six months. Symptom questionnaires were completed monthly. Follow-up was 12 months. The primary end point occurred in fewer patients following AF ablation + amiodarone than DCCV + amiodarone (seven patients, 28%
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.