ReviewThe Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology2025
Impact of venous closure systems on time to ambulation and discharge following AF ablation: a systematic review and meta-analytic review.
Review in The Egyptian heart journal : (EHJ) : official bulletin of the Egyptian Society of Cardiology, 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAtrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained cardiac rhythm disorder, significantly impacting global health and healthcare costs. Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is the preferred method for catheter-based AF ablation, reducing arrhythmia recurrence. However, vascular access complications remain a concern. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of venous closure systems (VCSs), like Perclose™ ProGlide™, with traditional manual compression (MC) techniques, focusing on time to hemostasis (TTH), time to ambulation in hours (TTA), time to discharge (TTD), and complication rates.
methodA comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Medline, Scopus, and Embase, adhering to PRISMA guidelines. Five studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Data were analyzed using OpenMeta, applying a random-effects model to calculate standardized mean differences (SMDs) and odds ratios (ORs). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I
resultThe meta-analysis included 5 studies with a total of 240 patients. VCSs significantly reduced TTA (SMD - 2.029, 95% CI - 3.097 to - 0.962, p = 0.001) and TTD (SMD - 2.081, 95% CI - 3.870 to - 0.292, p = 0.023) compared to MC, but showed no significant reduction in TTH (SMD - 1.109, 95% CI - 2.524 to 0.307, p = 0.125). No significant differences were observed in bleeding complications (OR 1.35, 95% CI 0.413 to 4.125, p = 0.604) or hematoma rates (OR 4.665, 95% CI 0.768 to 28.345, p = 0.094).
conclusionVCSs demonstrated faster ambulation and discharge times compared to MC techniques, suggesting potential benefits in improving patient flow and satisfaction. However, the slight increase in hematoma risk warrants further investigation. These findings could guide clinical decision-making in vascular access management post-AF ablation.
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.