ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2025
Efficacy and safety of different forms of ablation therapies and antiarrhythmic drugs in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of ablations and antiarrhythmic drugs (AADs) to determine the optimal treatment choice for atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from their inception to December 15, 2024, for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The risk of bias assessment tool developed by the Cochrane Collaboration Network was utilized to evaluate the risk of bias. The main outcomes were AF recurrence, adverse events, and all-cause death. A Bayesian NMA was conducted based on the collected data. Results: In total, 65 RCTs (n=17,770) comparing four ablations [cryoablation (CBA), laser balloon ablation (LBA), radiofrequency ablation (RFA), surgical ablation (SA)] and AADs were included. In this NMA, the four ablations all significantly reduced the risk of recurrent AF compared with AADs, with no significant differences [RFA: risk ratio (RR) =0.503, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.423-0.594; CBA: RR =0.465, 95% CI: 0.370-0.579; LBA: RR =0.522, 95% CI: 0.306-0.891; SA: RR =0.664, 95% CI: 0.392-1.12]. CBA and SA groups may be associated with more adverse events than AAD groups (CBA: RR =1.462, 95% CI: 0.956-2.283; SA: RR =2.054, 95% CI: 0.999-4.369). RFA appeared to reduce all-cause mortality compared to AADs (RR =0.745, 95% CI: 0.552-1.014). CBA took the shortest time to complete compared to the other three ablations. Conclusions: Catheter ablation (CA) and SA are equally effective and superior to AADs. However, SA has a high risk of complications, while compared with AADs, no evidence indicates that RFA and SA significantly reduce the risk of mortality.
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.