scholarly journals Systematic review and network meta‐analysis of atrial fibrillation percutaneous catheter ablation technologies using randomized controlled trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (8) ◽  
pp. 2192-2205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kishore Kukendrarajah ◽  
Nikolaos Papageorgiou ◽  
Paul Jewell ◽  
Ross J. Hunter ◽  
Richard Ang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Catheter Ablation ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Percutaneous Catheter

scholarly journals SURGICAL VERSUS CATHETER ABLATION IN ATRIAL FIBRILLATION: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS

2020 ◽  
Vol 75 (11) ◽  
pp. 460
Author(s):  
Pattara Rattanawong ◽  
Jakrin Kewcharoen ◽  
Chanavuth Kanitsoraphan ◽  
Wasawat Vutthikraivit ◽  
Anusha Shanbhag ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Catheter Ablation ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled

scholarly journals Thoracoscopic surgical ablation or catheter ablation for patients with atrial fibrillation? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (6) ◽  
pp. 763-773
Author(s):  
Shaolei Yi ◽  
Xiaojun Liu ◽  
Wei Wang ◽  
Lianghua Chen ◽  
Haitao Yuan
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Catheter Ablation ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Invasive Procedure ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Surgical Ablation ◽  
Randomized Controlled

Abstract OBJECTIVES There is an urgent need to understand the difference in the influence of thoracoscopic surgical ablation (TSA) and catheter ablation (CA) on clinical outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of TSA versus CA in patients with AF. METHODS Databases including EMBASE, Clinical Trials, PubMed and Cochrane Central Registered Control System were screened for the retrieval of articles. A direct meta-analysis of TSA versus CA was conducted. The I2 test analysis was performed to evaluate heterogeneity. The Begg–Mazumdar test and the Harbord–Egger test were used to detect publication bias. The primary efficacy outcome was freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmia, while the primary safety outcome was severe adverse event (SAE) occurrence. RESULTS Of the 860 identified articles, 6, comprising 466 participants, were finally included. The rate of freedom from AT was higher in the TSA group (75%) than in the CA group (57.1%) (odds ratio 0.41; 95% confidence interval 0.2–0.85; P = 0.02; I2 = 57%). A larger number of SAEs were observed in the TSA group than in the CA group (odds ratio 0.16; 95% confidence interval 0.006–0.46; P = 0.0006; I2 = 44%). The result of the subgroup analysis of 3 studies that enrolled AF patients without a history of ablation showed that the incidence of AT was comparable in both arms. The ablation procedure and hospitalization durations were longer in the TSA arm. CONCLUSIONS In our study, TSA was associated with better efficacy but a higher rate of SAEs compared to CA. In addition, TSA did not show better efficacy results as the first invasive procedure in the sub-analysis of patients with paroxysmal AF or early persistent AF. Therefore, doctors should recommend either TSA or CA to patients with AF after due consideration of the aforementioned findings.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document