SynthesisScientific reports2025
Meta-analysis of comprehensive prognostic evaluation in patients with atrial fibrillation complicated by heart failure after catheter ablation.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Catheter Ablation Versus Medical Therapy in Atrial Fibrillation With Heart Failure With Reduced or Mildly Reduced Ejection Fraction: A GRADE-Assessed Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of arrhythmia · 2026Article
- Very early cardiac hemodynamic changes after atrial fibrillation ablation.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Review
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
Abstract
Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) often coexist, posing increased risks of HF events, rehospitalization, mortality, and stroke. While antiarrhythmic drugs have limitations, catheter ablation (CA) has emerged as a preferred rhythm control treatment for AF, yet its clinical outcomes remain inconclusive. Previous meta-analyses have predominantly included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or cohort studies with limited sample sizes and outcome measures, which do not comprehensively and accurately reflect the clinical prognosis of patients with AF and HF following CA. However, the high prevalence of AF and HF comorbidity and the significant economic burden it imposes underscore the importance of focusing on the clinical prognosis of these patients. This meta-analysis systematically includes high-quality RCTs and cohort studies in evidence-based medicine, comprising a total of 34 studies and 777,668 patients.Meta-analysis revealed that CA significantly reduced the risk of HF events (RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.51-0.77), cardiovascular (CV) mortality (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.45-0.66), CV hospitalization (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.93), all-cause mortality (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.46-0.70), all-cause rehospitalization (RR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-0.996),AF recurrence (RR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.36-0.57), and stroke (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.57-0.83) when compared to NCA. CA demonstrated superior benefits in improving outcomes for patients with AF and HF, including HF events, mortality, rehospitalization, AF recurrence and incidence of stroke. Additionally, CA shows similar therapeutic effects in improving cardiac structure, cardiopulmonary function, and quality of life.These findings support the efficacy of CA in managing AF and HF.
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.