SynthesisBMC cardiovascular disorders2026
Empirical Superior Vena Cava Isolation Added to Pulmonary Vein Isolation in Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2026. 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is the cornerstone of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF), yet recurrence remains common due to non–pulmonary vein triggers, particularly the superior vena cava (SVC). Empiric superior vena cava isolation (SVCI) has been proposed as an adjunct to improve outcomes, but its clinical benefit remains uncertain.
methodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook and PRISMA 2020 guidelines. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and clinical trial registries were searched from inception through December 10, 2025. Randomized controlled trials and observational cohort studies comparing PVI plus empiric SVCI with PVI alone in adults with atrial fibrillation were included. Outcomes assessed included AF recurrence, event-free survival, procedural success, procedural metrics, and complications. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2.0 and the Robins-I. Pooled estimates were calculated using random-effects models.
resultsTen studies comprising 1,055 patients (PVI: 531; PVI + SVCI: 524) were included. There was no statistically significant difference in AF recurrence between PVI + SVCI and PVI alone (OR 1.32; 95% CI 0.95–1.84). Event-free survival (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.53–1.00) and procedural success rates also did not differ significantly. Procedural time, ablation duration, and fluoroscopy time were comparable between strategies. Notably, PVI + SVCI was associated with a significantly lower risk of phrenic nerve injury (OR 0.20; 95% CI 0.10–0.41), while other complications, including pericardial effusion, pseudo-aneurysm, and deep venous thrombosis, were similar between groups.
conclusionsEmpiric SVC isolation added to pulmonary vein isolation does not significantly improve rhythm outcomes in unselected AF populations but appears safe and may reduce phrenic nerve injury without increasing procedural burden.
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.