ArticleJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2026
Outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock and atrial fibrillation receiving pulmonary vein isolation or AV node ablation and cardiac resynchronization.
Article in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe safety and tolerability of early invasive therapies for rapid atrial fibrillation in patients with cardiogenic shock is yet to be established.
methodThis retrospective study reviewed patients with diagnosis of atrial fibrillation and cardiogenic shock during the same hospital admission between 2019 and 2024. These patients were dependent on inotropes and/or mechanical circulatory support and received PVI or AVJ ablation with CRT implantation during the index hospitalization. Outcomes measured were procedural complications, post-procedural heart failure or Afib hospitalization, continued inotrope and/or mechanical circulatory dependence, mortality, and change in ejection fraction.
resultsOf 54 patients reviewed, 16 met the study criteria. At baseline, 94% (15/16) of patients were on inotropes for management of cardiogenic shock while 44% (7/16) were on mechanical circulatory support. There were minimal adverse events associated with invasive management of atrial fibrillation. There was a trend towards reduced dependence on inotropes and mechanical support post-procedure. There was a significant increase in ejection fraction from a baseline of 20% pre-procedure to an average of 36% post-procedure, with an increase in EF recorded in 80% of patients. There was one re-admission for heart failure and no re-admissions for atrial fibrillation at 6 months post-procedure.
conclusionOur study shows that among patients with atrial fibrillation and cardiogenic shock, invasive therapy with pulmonary vein isolation or AV node ablation and CRT implantation is safe and may be associated with improved survival, reduced need for continued hemodynamic support, reduced hospital readmission, and improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41091363What 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.