ReviewCardiovascular therapeutics2026
Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Interventions for Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.
Review in Cardiovascular therapeutics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Interventions for Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.Cardiovascular therapeutics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatients with HF and AF face high risks of death and HF decompensation, yet the comparative effectiveness of commonly used AF management strategies remains uncertain. This study is aimed at comparing the efficacy and safety of different interventional and medical approaches using NMA of RCTs.
methodsPubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched from inception to November 30, 2025, without language restrictions. Parallel-group RCTs enrolling adults with clinically diagnosed HF and documented AF were eligible if they compared at least two AF management strategies, including CA, AVNA with CRT or RV pacing, MRC, drug-based rhythm control (rhythm drug), or CON. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization; secondary outcomes were worsening HF, CV mortality, QoL, and LVEF. Random-effects NMA was performed in Stata 17.0, reporting ORs and SMDs with 95% CIs; treatments were ranked using SUCRA.
resultsTwenty-three RCTs (5159 patients) were included. For all-cause mortality (21 trials; 5095 patients), AVNA_CRT (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.12-0.78) and CA (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.35-0.82) were associated with lower mortality than CON; AVNA_CRT also outperformed MRC (OR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.15-0.79) and AVNA_RV (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.25-0.96). For HF hospitalization (9 trials; 3491 patients), AVNA_CRT reduced risk compared with AVNA_RV (OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.04-0.94). For worsening HF (7 trials; 2542 patients), AVNA_CRT was superior to AVNA_RV (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.20-0.84). CA improved QoL versus AVNA_CRT (SMD, -0.94; 95% CI, -1.83 to -0.05) and MRC (SMD, -0.73; 95% CI, -1.22 to -0.24), and improved LVEF versus MRC (SMD, 1.49; 95% CI, 0.57-2.41). No between-strategy differences were clearly demonstrated for CV mortality.
conclusionIn RCT evidence for HF with AF, AVNA_CRT and CA were associated with more favorable prognostic outcomes, and CA provided more consistent improvements in QoL and LVEF. When AVNA is selected, CRT should be preferred over RV pacing. Strategy choice should be individualized to clinical goals, patient phenotype, and procedural feasibility.
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.