ArticleBiomedical reports2025
Efficacy and safety of catheter ablation with vein of Marshall ethanol infusion in patients with persistent AF and HFrEF.
Article in Biomedical reports, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common arrhythmia that usually coexists with heart failure (HF). However, research into the efficacy and safety of catheter ablation with vein of Marshall ethanol infusion (VOM-EI) in patients with persistent AF and HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is limited. In the present study, a single-center retrospective study was conducted, involving 85 patients with persistent AF and HFrEF. Patients in group A (n=40; male/female: 29/11; average age: 62.33±11.50 years) received catheter ablation plus VOM-EI treatment, while patients in group B (n=45; male/female: 34/11; average age: 59.36±10.91 years) received catheter ablation only. The study compared the two groups regarding primary endpoint events (rate of restoration of sinus rhythm after surgery and rate of postoperative AF recurrence) and secondary endpoint events [cardiac function parameters (left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left atrium diameter (LAD), left ventricular end diastolic volume (LVEDV)], New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification, B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and rate of postoperative rehospitalization] at 6 months of follow-up. Surgery duration and perioperative adverse events were also compared between the two groups. There were no statistical differences in baseline characteristics, CHA2DS2-VASc score and HAS-BLED score between the two groups. In comparison with group B, group A had a decreased rate of postoperative AF recurrence (2.78 vs. 21.05%). Compared with preoperative levels, both groups achieved significant enhancement in postoperative LVEF, LVEDV and LAD. Group A exhibited a significantly greater improvement in postoperative LVEF, NYHA classification and BNP levels compared with group B. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in the rate of sinus rhythm restoration (90.0 vs. 84.44%) and the rate of postoperative rehospitalization (2.78 vs. 15.79). In addition, group A exhibited a significantly shorter surgical duration than group B (156.78±39.36 min vs. 181.73±52.39 min). There were no statistically significant differences in the rate of perioperative adverse events between the two groups (7.5 vs. 8.89%). In summary, the use of VOM-EI in conjunction with catheter ablation is a safe and effective strategy for treating patients with persistent AF and HFrEF. This approach results in effective cardiac function restoration, lower postoperative AF recurrence rate, and shorter surgical time.
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.