ArticleJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2026
Heterogeneity in endpoints, monitoring methods and blanking periods in clinical trials of atrial fibrillation ablation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCatheter ablation is a cornerstone of rhythm control in atrial fibrillation (AF). It is important that clinical trials in AF ablation have comparable endpoints and outcomes. We performed a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in AF ablation to evaluate endpoint definitions, monitoring methods, follow-up protocols and blanking periods.
methodsElectronic databases were searched for RCTs in catheter ablation for AF with ≥ 100 patients and ≥ 6 months of follow-up. Data were collected on study characteristics, patient demographics, arrhythmia monitoring methods, blanking periods, arrhythmia endpoints.
results129 RCTs (n = 31,406) met inclusion criteria; 114 studies involved radiofrequency ablation and 43% patients had persistent AF. There were 19 different definitions of arrhythmia endpoints; the most common was AF/atrial tachyarrhythmia ≥ 30 s (102/129; 79%). Composite endpoints were used in 55 studies (43%). There were 11 different methods of monitoring arrhythmia recurrence; 24-h Holter (67/129; 52%) was most frequent, followed by transtelephonic/event-triggered monitoring (50/129; 39%), then 7-day Holter monitors (30/129; 23%). In the first year of follow-up, arrhythmia recurrence was most commonly assessed at 6 months (120/129; 93%), 12 months (117/129; 91%), and 3 months (116/129; 90%); 56 trials (43%) reported 1-month visit. Most trials used a 90-day blanking period (109/129, 84%). Recurrences during blanking period was reported in only 32 trials (25%).
conclusionSignificant heterogeneity exists in RCTs of AF ablation with varying definitions of arrhythmia recurrence, monitoring methods, follow-up schedules and blanking periods. Scientific consensus and more standardised assessment of arrhythmia recurrence is needed to improve comparability of clinical outcomes in RCTs of AF ablation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42364049What 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.