A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Safety and Efficacy of Different Catheter Ablations for Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. | LitMetric

Safety and Efficacy of Different Catheter Ablations for Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Pacing Clin Electrophysiol

Department of Cardiology, Hangzhou Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Shangcheng District, Hangzhou City, Zhejiang Province, China.

Published: August 2016

Background: Previous studies suggested that cryoballoon ablation had clinical benefits comparable to those of radiofrequency ablation. However, recently, some new catheters have been invented, and no universal consensus exists on which ablation is the optimal choice. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess and compare the safety and efficacy of cryoballoon and radiofrequency ablation by synthesizing published trials.

Methods And Results: A systematic literature review was conducted searching Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and so forth. All trials comparing cryoballoon and radiofrequency ablation were screened and included if inclusion criteria were met. A total of 40 eligible studies were identified, adding up to 11,395 patients. The follow-up period ranged from 3 months to 25 months. Overall analyses indicated that cryoballoon ablation could bring more benefit in procedural time (risk ratio [RR] = -0.39, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.62 to -0.15), atrial fibrillation (AF) recrudescence (RR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.70-0.96), and major complications (RR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.58-0.95) for patients with AF. For the subgroups, the first-generation cryoballoon significantly reduced procedural time and major complications, but it increased ablation time. The patients referred for the second-generation cryoballoon (CBA) seemed to receive more clinical benefit (procedural time, fluoroscopic time, ablation time, AF recrudescence) and fewer complications. Finally, multiparty catheter (MTCA) was found to significantly reduce procedural and fluoroscopic times with a high rate of AF recrudescence.

Conclusions: The present systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated that cryoballoon ablation was associated with greater freedom from AF, shorter procedural time, and lower rate of major complications, compared with radiofrequency ablation. Especially, CBA was more advantageous. However, MTCA seems promising for radiofrequency ablation.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/pace.12889DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

radiofrequency ablation
20
procedural time
16
systematic review
12
review meta-analysis
12
cryoballoon ablation
12
major complications
12
ablation
11
safety efficacy
8
atrial fibrillation
8
cryoballoon radiofrequency
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!