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: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

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

Steerable versus nonsteerable sheath technology in atrial fibrillation ablation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. | LitMetric

Introduction: Catheter placement and stability are well-known challenges in atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. As a result, steerable sheaths (SS) were developed to improve catheter stabilization and maintain proper catheter-tissue contact. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to see if employing a SS influences procedure outcome.

Method: We performed a comprehensive literature search for studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of SS compared to nonsteerable sheaths (NSS) in AF ablation. The primary outcome was the rate of atrial arrhythmia (AA) freedom by the time of the last follow-up. The secondary outcomes were the procedure-related complications and procedural characteristics. Risk ratio (RR) or the mean difference (MD) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the random-effects model.

Results: A total of 10 studies, including 967 AF patients (mean age: 59.2 ± 11.1 years, 516 patients managed with SS vs. 454 with NSS), were included. SS group showed a higher rate of freedom of AA compared to NSS (RR: 1.19; 95% CI 1.09-1.29;  < .001). Both techniques had similar rate for procedural-related complication (RR: 1.09, 95% CI 0.50-2.39;  = .83). The SS strategy had a shorter procedure time (MD -10.6 [min], 95% CI -20.97, -0.20;  = .05) but comparable fluoroscopic and radiofrequency application times to the NSS group.

Conclusions: The SS for AF catheter ablation not only reduced the total procedure time but also significantly increased the rate of successful ablation while maintaining a similar safety profile when compared to the traditional NSS.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9347204PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/joa3.12742DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

atrial fibrillation
8
fibrillation ablation
8
systematic review
8
review meta-analysis
8
steerable versus
4
versus nonsteerable
4
nonsteerable sheath
4
sheath technology
4
technology atrial
4
ablation systematic
4

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!