SynthesisJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2026
Catheter ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation and cancer: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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
backgroundAtrial fibrillation (AF) is common in cancer patients, and catheter ablation (CA) is a treatment option. However, outcomes of CA in cancer patients remain unclear.
objectivesTo evaluate the outcomes of CA for AF in patients with a current or previous history of cancer compared to those without cancer, primarily focusing on bleeding, arrhythmia recurrence, repeat ablation, and mortality.
methodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA guidelines. Data on bleeding, AF recurrence, repeat ablation, and mortality were pooled. Sensitivity analyses, meta-regression, and subgroup analyses explored factors influencing outcomes.
resultsThere were no randomized controlled trials (RCT). We included eight observational studies with 69,819 patients, of whom 68,913 were included in the primary outcome analysis. There was a non-significant trend toward increased clinically relevant bleeding within three months after CA in cancer patients compared to those without cancer (4.9% vs. 3.3%; OR 1.57; 95% CI 0.99-2.51; p = 0.056; I
conclusionsCompared to patients without cancer, CA for AF in cancer patients shows a trend toward higher bleeding risk, without statistical significance. RCT focused on cancer patients are needed to assess the safety and efficacy of AF treatments in this high-risk population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41231341What 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.