ArticleCureus2024
Left Atrial Appendage Closure With Catheter Ablation vs. Ablation Alone on Outcomes of Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Combining left atrial appendage closure with catheter ablation (LAACCA) has been proposed as a potential approach to improving outcomes by simultaneously addressing arrhythmia and reducing stroke risk. This study compares the in-hospital outcomes of LAACCA vs. catheter ablation (CA) alone for atrial fibrillation (AFib) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods We analyzed adult hospitalizations with HFrEF and AFib who underwent LAACCA or CA alone from the 2016-2020 nationwide inpatient sample using validated ICD-10 codes. Propensity score matching, accounting for patient-, hospital-, and procedure-level covariates, illness severity, and baseline risk of mortality, was used to alleviate bias in nonrandomized treatment assignments. The primary endpoints included all-cause in-hospital mortality, hospital stay, and hospitalization costs. Secondary endpoints included postprocedural complication rates. Prolonged hospitalization was defined as hospital stay in the top decile of hospital stay in each cohort. All statistical analyses in the study were based on weighted hospital data. Results About 233,865 HFrEF patients were hospitalized for AFib. Approximately 27,945 (11.9%) underwent LAACCA, while 205,920 (88.1%) underwent CA only. The cohort comprised mostly males (151,077; 64.6%) (mean age: 67.4; SD: 4.3). The propensity score-matched cohort comprised 18,195 LAACCAs and 18,195 CAs; all covariate imbalances were alleviated. LAACCA was associated with a higher rate of prolonged hospital stay (7.6 vs 5.6 days; P<0.001), a higher mortality rate (209 (1.1%) vs. 160 (0.9%); P=0.011), and higher mean hospital costs ($289,960 vs. $183,932; P<0.001) compared with CA alone. LAACCA was associated with a higher incidence of acute myocardial ischemia (528 (2.9%) vs. 455 (2.5%); P=0.013), complete atrioventricular block (1,200 (6.6%) vs. 892 (4.9%); P=0.004), need for implantable device therapy (1,510 (8.3%) vs. 1,348 (7.4%); P=0.017), pneumothorax (328 (1.8%) vs. 91 (0.5%); P<0.0001), hemothorax (200 (1.1%) vs. 127 (0.7%); P<0.0001), pneumonia (983 (5.4%) vs. 546 (3.0%); P<0.0001), vascular access complications (346 (1.9%) vs. 255 (1.4%); P=0.046), and septicemia (309 (1.7%) vs. 182 (1.0%); P<0.001). CA was associated with a greater incidence of cardiac tamponade (237 (1.3%) vs. 382 (2.1%); P=0.010) and femoral artery pseudoaneurysm (364 (0.2%) vs. 91 (0.5%); P<0.001). Conclusion LAACCA was correlated with higher mortality odds compared to CA alone for atrial fibrillation in HFrEF.
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.