Trial reportBMC cardiovascular disorders2025
Ablation versus drug therapy in atrial fibrillation patients with or without prior Pharmacological or direct current cardioversion: results from the CABANA trial.
Trial report in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2025. 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCatheter ablation is superior to drug therapy in selected atrial fibrillation (AF) patients, yet the impact of prior non-ablation rhythm control remains unclear.
methodsWe analyzed data from Catheter Ablation vs. Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation (CABANA) trial, which assessed whether catheter ablation was more effective than drugs for improving outcomes in AF patients, including paroxysmal, persistent and long-standing persistent AF. In this study, patients were stratified by whether they had pharmacological or direct current cardioversion (P/DCCV) before randomization. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. The secondary outcomes included all-cause death, death or cardiovascular hospitalization, cardiovascular death, AF recurrence and composite of all-cause death, stroke, or cardiovascular hospitalization.
resultsIn CABANA trial, 1,035 (47.0%) had a history of P/DCCV. The effect of catheter ablation on primary outcome did not differ significantly between patients with prior P/DCCV and those without (HR = 1.00, 95%CI [0.66–1.51] and HR = 0.68, 95%CI [0.45–1.03], respectively). For the secondary outcome of death or cardiovascular hospitalization, catheter ablation reduced risk in both groups, with a greater effect observed in patients with prior P/DCCV (HR = 0.72, 95%CI [0.61–0.85] vs. HR = 0.91, 95%CI [0.78–1.07], respectively; P for interaction = 0.032). Ablation also significantly reduced AF recurrence in both groups and improved AF-related quality of life over 60 months of follow-up.
conclusionIn this post-hoc analysis of the CABANA trial, catheter ablation was associated with greater benefit in reducing the composite outcome of death or cardiovascular hospitalization among patients with prior P/DCCV.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.