ArticleCureus2025
Comparison of Clinical Factors Between Recurrent and Non-recurrent Atrial Fibrillation Within One Year After Catheter Ablation by the Same Operators at a Regional Core Hospital in Japan.
Article in Cureus, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although catheter ablation has emerged as a cornerstone treatment for atrial fibrillation, recurrence after catheter ablation occurs in approximately 20%-40% of patients within one year. Moreover, advances in devices, evolving treatment strategies, and differences in operator proficiency are believed to significantly impact outcomes. Whether results from large-scale international clinical trials can be directly applied to clinical practice at a regional core hospital in Japan remains a matter of debate. Considering these backgrounds, this study aimed to compare the clinical factors between recurrent and non-recurrent groups after atrial fibrillation catheter ablation in a regional core hospital in Japan, using the same treatment approach conducted by the same operators. A total of 368 consecutive patients who had their first catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation at our hospital between January 2017 and March 2022 were divided into two groups: non-recurrent (n = 311) and recurrent (n = 57). The recurrent group had significantly longer procedure time (196 ± 64 vs. 174 ± 66 minutes; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.05, 0.62; P = 0.021), more cases of early recurrence (42% vs. 13%; 95% CI 2.69, 8.82; P = 0.001), higher rates of long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (39% vs. 22%; 95% CI 1.23, 4.08; P = 0.008), greater left atrial volume index (LAVI) (49.8 ± 19.7 vs. 37.7 ± 14.6 mL/m
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.