ArticleHeart rhythm O22026
Left ventricular wall thickness and functional recovery after atrial fibrillation ablation in patients with systolic dysfunction.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Left ventricular functional recovery after atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation varies widely in patients with systolic dysfunction. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate whether baseline left ventricular wall thickness (LVWT) and its regional heterogeneity predict recovery of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) after AF ablation. Methods: Of 5535 consecutive patients undergoing first-time AF ablation (2012-2024), 342 with a baseline LVEF of <50% (median age 64 years; 86% male; 19% with previous myocardial infarction) were retrospectively analyzed. Multidetector computed tomography was performed before ablation, and LVWT was quantified using a 16-segment model at end-diastole. Mean LVWT and its standard deviation (SD) across segments were calculated. The primary endpoint was the 6-month change in LVEF (ΔLVEF) on echocardiography. Results: Median mean LVWT and SD of LVWT were 7.03 mm (6.19-8.00) and 1.20 mm (0.95-1.50), respectively. LVEF improved from 38.7% (32.0%-44.4%) to 56.0% (44.3%-62.0%) at 6 months ( Conclusion: Baseline LVWT and its regional heterogeneity were independently associated with postablation functional recovery in patients with a baseline LVEF of <50%. Preprocedural LVWT assessment may help estimate myocardial reserve and expected functional recovery after AF ablation.
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.