ReviewJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2026
Intracardiac versus transesophageal echocardiography in atrial fibrillation ablation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review 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. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExcluding left atrial appendage thrombus via imaging is essential prior to atrial fibrillation (AF) catheter ablation to prevent thromboembolic events. While transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is considered the reference standard, intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) has emerged as a workflow-optimizing alternative, though its comparative safety and efficacy remain debated. This study aimed to compare ICE and TEE in patients undergoing AF ablation.
methodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were systematically searched for studies comparing ICE with TEE in AF ablation from inception to October 2025. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was evaluated using the I² statistic. All statistical analyses were conducted using R software (version 4.5.1).
resultsFour studies comprising 4,447 patients were included. The pooled analyses showed no significant differences regarding thrombus presence (RR: 0.763; 95% CI: 0.301–1.929) or risk of stroke (RR: 0.766; 95% CI: 0.276–2.123). notably, ICE significantly shortened fluoroscopy time (MD: -4.94; 95% CI: -5.76 to -4.12). Procedural waiting time (MD: -5.58; 95% CI: -11.69 to 0.54), total procedure time, and radiofrequency delivery time did not differ significantly between groups. Regarding safety, incidences of pericardial effusions and major bleeding events were comparable between the two modalities.
conclusionOur findings suggest that ICE is a safe and effective alternative to TEE for AF ablation, offering comparadiagnostic efficacy and safety profiles while significantly reducing fluoroscopy times. PROSPERO registration: CRD420251234526. CLINICAL
trial registrationNot applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41848975What 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.