SynthesisAmerican journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions2025
Cost Effectiveness of Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drugs for Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions, 2025. 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.
- Landscape Analysis of Literature Using Quantitative Approaches to Synthesize Economic Evaluation Studies: A Scoping Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Review
- Pulsed field ablation vs. medical therapy for atrial fibrillation: a propensity score-matched comparison with the JoFib registry.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Why atrial fibrillation ablation remains underused in EuroAsia Task Force countries: insights from the ESC-EHRA Atlas and a regional survey.Cardiology journal · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAtrial fibrillation (AF) is the most prevalent cardiac arrhythmia and is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Current international guidelines recommend antiarrhythmic drugs or catheter ablation (CA) as rhythm-control strategies for AF. This study aimed to comprehensively assess economic evaluations (EEs) of the treatment of AF by country income level.
methodsSeven electronic databases were systematically searched for EE literature until March 30, 2024, with no constraints on time or language. Two independent reviewers selected the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the quality of the data. Full EEs comparing CA with antiarrhythmic drugs for rhythm-control treatment were included; surgical or rate-control treatments were excluded. The quality of the included articles was assessed using the ECOBIAS checklist. Costs were converted to purchasing power parity US dollars for 2023. A random-effects meta-analysis was applied to pool incremental net benefit (INB) based on a heterogeneity test and its degree (I
resultsIn total, 27 studies across nine countries were eligible, predominantly from high-income countries (n = 25), with a smaller subset from upper-middle-income countries (n = 2). Because of the heterogeneity among the studies, a random-effects model was selected over a fixed-effects model to pool INBs. Most studies (n = 21) favored CA as the cost-effective intervention, yielding an INB of $US23,796 (95% confidence interval [CI] 15,341-32,251) in high-income countries. However, heterogeneity was substantial (I
conclusionIn this meta-analysis, CA emerged as a cost-effective rhythm-control treatment for AF when compared with antiarrhythmic drugs, particularly in high-income countries. However, economic evidence for upper-middle-income countries is lacking, and no primary evaluations were found for low-middle-income and low-income countries. Further EEs are necessary to expand the understanding of AF treatment globally.
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.