SynthesisHerz2025
Efficacy of sacubitril-valsartan vs. angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers in preventing atrial fibrillation recurrence after catheter ablation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Herz, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Molecular Mechanisms of Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence After Successful Catheter Ablation.Cells · 2025Review
- Early sacubitril/valsartan use associated with reduced atrial fibrillation risk in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by mitral regurgitation: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients who have undergone catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) may experience recurrence of this condition. The efficacy of sacubitril-valsartan (S/V) in preventing AF recurrence compared with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) is not established. This meta-analysis aimed to establish the best therapeutic choice for preventing AF recurrence after catheter ablation.
methodA systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing the use of S/V with ACEI/ARB in patients who underwent catheter ablation. Results are presented as mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed with the I
resultsThree RCTs and one cohort study, comprising 642 patients with 319 patients in the S/V group and 323 in the control group, were included. Follow-up ranged from 6 to 36 months, with mean ages ranging from 58.9 to 65.8 years. A significant reduction in persistent AF occurrence was demonstrated favoring the S/V group (RR: 0.54; 95% CI: [0.41, 0.70]; p = 0.000004; I
conclusionThis meta-analysis demonstrated the efficacy of S/V in reducing the incidence of AF in patients undergoing catheter ablation compared with the use of ACEI/ARB. However, more RCTs are needed for a comprehensive evaluation of its efficacy in reducing AF recurrence after catheter ablation in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39313691What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.