ArticleJournal of cardiovascular electrophysiology2025
Immediate Leg Mobilization is Feasible After Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation Using Large Vascular Access Sheaths (Pulsed Field and Cryoballoon Ablation).
Article in Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundVascular recovery from catheter ablation (CA) has traditionally required a period of leg immobilization which can lead to discomfort and prolonged time to discharge.
objectiveThe objective of this study was to compare a strategy of immediate leg mobilization (IM) using suture-mediated closure devices against traditional vascular recovery consisting of figure-of-eight suture and 4 h bed rest (BR) after CA of atrial fibrillation (AF) using large vascular access sheaths for cryoballoon ablation (CBA) and pulsed field ablation (PFA).
methodsTwo hundred subjects were retrospectively analyzed: 100 IM and 100 BR. Vascular closure in IM consisted of a single suture-mediated closure delivered to each of three venotomies. Following the procedure, both legs could be mobilized immediately with no head-of-bed restriction. Ambulation was instructed at 1 h, and discharge at 3 h postprocedure. Hemostasis in BR was achieved using figure-of-eight sutures and 4 h of BR. The primary endpoint was the incidence of vascular complications. The secondary endpoint was time to discharge.
resultsThe mean age was 68.4 ± 11.7 years. In total, 72% of subjects in IM and 5% of the subjects in BR were treated with PFA. There was no difference in vascular complications (1 IM vs. 0 BR, p = 0.316). Time to discharge was shorter in IM (4.2 ± 2.6 h vs. 6.0 ± 2.7 h, p < 0.05).
conclusionImmediate mobilization with suture-mediated vascular closure following CBA or PFA was associated with no difference in vascular complications compared to 4 h BR and shorter time to discharge. Further studies are needed to illustrate potential benefits to patient comfort and satisfaction.
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.