ArticleOpen heart2025
Withdrawing guideline-directed medical therapy after left ventricular ejection fraction recovery following atrial fibrillation ablation: a multicentre cohort study.
Article in Open heart, 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
33 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAtrial fibrillation (AF)-induced cardiomyopathy (AIC) is characterised by reversible left ventricular (LV) dysfunction after restoration of sinus rhythm (SR). The need for continued guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for heart failure after LV ejection fraction (LVEF) recovery in AIC after catheter ablation (CA) is unclear.
methodsThis multicentre cohort study across 12 UK centres included adults undergoing index AF ablation (June 2019-June 2024) with LVEF <50% preablation and recovery to ≥50% at three timepoints: preablation; early postablation (≥4 weeks) and late postablation (≥3 months or ≥3 months post-GDMT withdrawal). Patients were stratified post recovery of LVEF after CA. The primary outcome was mean LVEF at late follow-up; secondary outcomes included absolute change in LVEF, LV end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) and SR maintenance.
results88 patients met inclusion enrolment criteria (61.7±10.6 years old; 91% male), of which 50 (56.8%) continued full-dose GDMT and 38 (43.2%) withdrew ≥50% of GDMT. In the GDMT-withdrawn group, mean GDMT classes decreased from 2.97±0.88 to 1.03±0.79 (p<0.001). At late follow-up, mean LVEF was comparable (56.3%±3.8% GDMT-continued vs 56.8%±5.5% GDMT-withdrawn; p=0.59), as was LVEF change (1.2% vs 0.4%; p=0.48). One relapse occurred in each group secondary to an acute coronary syndrome (2.0% vs 2.6%; p=1). LVEDD remained stable (p>0.8). SR was maintained in 82.0% vs 92.1% of patients; p=0.17.
conclusionsSelective GDMT withdrawal after sustained LVEF recovery and rhythm control did not compromise LV systolic function, remodelling or rhythm maintenance. This supports the study of personalised de-escalation strategies in AIC in prospective trials.
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.