Observational studyBMJ open2026
Association between venous access-site closure device use and postoperative nausea and vomiting after atrial fibrillation ablation under propofol sedation: a single-centre retrospective observational study in Okayama, Japan.
Observational study in BMJ open, 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 issuedCorrection for '2026
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo examine whether the use of a venous access-site closure device is associated with the occurrence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation under propofol sedation.
designObservational study.
settingA single-centre retrospective observational study in Okayama, Japan.
participantsWe retrospectively analysed consecutive patients who underwent AF ablation under deep propofol sedation with adaptive servo-ventilation. A total of 686 patients were included. Patients were managed using a standardised sedation protocol with or without low-dose pentazocine. Patients treated with conventional manual compression for haemostasis (n=383) were compared with those treated using a venous access-site closure device (n=303).
interventionsPostprocedural bed rest duration and the incidence and timing of PONV were compared between groups. Associations between closure device use and PONV were evaluated using logistic regression analysis. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome was the occurrence of PONV following AF ablation.
resultsAll procedures were completed under propofol sedation without conversion to general anaesthesia. The duration of postprocedural bed rest was shorter in the device group than in the conventional-compression group (mean difference -14.7 hours, 95% CI -15.2 to -14.0).PONV occurred in 6/303 patients (2.0%) in the device group and 20/383 patients (5.2%) in the conventional-compression group, corresponding to a relative risk of 0.38 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.93), an OR 0.25 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.62) and a risk difference of -3.2% (95% CI -6.0% to -0.5%).In multivariable analysis, use of a venous closure device was associated with a lower likelihood of PONV.
conclusionsIn this single-centre observational study, use of a venous access-site closure device was associated with a lower occurrence of PONV after AF ablation under propofol sedation. These findings suggest that postprocedural management strategies enabling earlier mobilisation may be associated with improved patient comfort; however, causal inference is limited by the observational design.
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.