ArticleScientific reports2025
Safety and effectiveness of catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with mitral valve replacement mechanical versus bioprosthetic valves.
Article in Scientific 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
24 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aims to investigate if there is a difference in the safety and efficacy of catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) between patients with bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement (MVR) and those with mechanical MVR. A total of 23,794 patients who underwent the first-time catheter ablation of AF were screened. Patients with a history of surgical AF ablation, left atrial appendage closure, or resection were excluded from the study. There were 21 patients in the bioprosthetic MVR group and 85 patients in the mechanical MVR group were included in the study. After a median follow-up of 17.9 (14.4, 21.4) months, AF recurrence rates were similar between the two groups (52.4% vs. 50.6%, log-rank p = 0.527). Persistent AF was independently associated with AF recurrence (HR 1.83, [95% CI 1.00-3.33], p < 0.05). Mitral isthmus block rates were 78.6% in the bioprosthetic MVR group and 69.6% in the mechanical MVR group (p = 0.508). No instances of catheter entrapment were reported in this study. Two pseudoaneurysm and one acute cerebral infarction occurred in the mechanical MVR group. The safety and effectiveness of AF catheter ablation were comparable between patients with mechanical MVR and those with bioprosthetic MVR.
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.