ReviewCureus2025
Cryoablation Versus Radiofrequency Ablation in the Management of Pediatric Supraventricular Tachyarrhythmia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. 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.
- Ablation of manifest accessory pathways in pediatric patients: comparison between conventional and non‑radiological navigation techniques.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 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
Supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) is a common arrhythmia in pediatric patients, often requiring catheter ablation for effective treatment. Two primary techniques, radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and cryoablation (CA), are widely used; however, their comparative safety and efficacy remain subjects of debate, with no clear consensus on the preferred approach. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of RFA and CA in pediatric patients with SVT, focusing on the primary outcomes of acute success and recurrence rates. The study was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Eligible studies included comparative analyses such as randomized controlled trials, non-randomized trials, and observational studies that specifically evaluated RFA and CA in pediatric populations with SVT. Exclusion criteria included studies involving adult populations, those without comparative groups, case reports, case series, and conference abstracts. Data extracted from the included studies encompassed acute success rates, recurrence rates, and complication rates, providing a comprehensive overview of the performance and safety profiles of RFA and CA in this patient group. Acute success rates were high for both techniques (RFA: 96.3%, CA: 94.9%; p = 0.137). However, RFA demonstrated a significantly lower recurrence rate (7.9% vs. 14.4%; odds ratio (OR): 0.408, 95% CI: 0.242-0.689, p < 0.001). CA was associated with longer procedure durations (mean difference: 9.684 minutes, p = 0.437) and significantly reduced fluoroscopy times (mean difference: 6.566 minutes, p = 0.032). Complication rates were comparable, with a non-significant trend favoring RFA (OR: 0.363, p = 0.112). Overall, both RFA and CA were found to be effective and safe for pediatric SVT. RFA offers durable results with lower recurrence rates, while CA minimizes fluoroscopy time, thereby reducing radiation exposure. Treatment selection should be individualized, considering factors such as the type and location of the arrhythmia as well as specific procedural risks.
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.