Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,503

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effect of Catheter Ablation vs Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy on Mortality, Stroke, Bleeding, and Cardiac Arrest Among Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: The CABANA Randomized Clinical Trial

Open access
Packer, Douglas L., Mark, Daniel B., Robb, Richard A., Monahan, Kristi H., Bahnson, Tristram D., Poole, Jeanne E., Noseworthy, Peter A., Rosenberg, Yves D., Jeffries, Neal, Mitchell, L. Brent, Flaker, Greg C., Pokushalov, Evgeny, Romanov, Alexander, Bunch, T. Jared, Noelker, Georg, Ardashev, Andrey, Revishvili, Amiran, Wilber, David J., Cappato, Riccardo, Kuck, Karl-Heinz, Hindricks, Gerhard, Davies, D. Wyn, Kowey, Peter R., Naccarelli, Gerald V., Reiffel, James A., Piccini, Jonathan P., Silverstein, Adam P., Al-Khalidi, Hussein R., Lee, Kerry L., for the CABANA Investigators·2019·JAMA

Abstract

Importance: Catheter ablation is effective in restoring sinus rhythm in atrial fibrillation (AF), but its effects on long-term mortality and stroke risk are uncertain. Objective: To determine whether catheter ablation is more effective than conventional medical therapy for improving outcomes in AF. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Catheter Ablation vs Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation trial is an investigator-initiated, open-label, multicenter, randomized trial involving 126 centers in 10 countries. A total of 2204 symptomatic patients with AF aged 65 years and older or younger than 65 years with 1 or more risk factors for stroke were enrolled from November 2009 to April 2016, with follow-up through December 31, 2017. Interventions: The catheter ablation group (n = 1108) underwent pulmonary vein isolation, with additional ablative procedures at the discretion of site investigators. The drug therapy group (n = 1096) received standard rhythm and/or rate control drugs guided by contemporaneous guidelines. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was a composite of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. Among 13 prespecified secondary end points, 3 are included in this report: all-cause mortality; total mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization; and AF recurrence. Results: Of the 2204 patients randomized (median age, 68 years; 37.2% female; 42.9% had paroxysmal AF and 57.1% had persistent AF), 89.3% completed the trial. Of the patients assigned to catheter ablation, 1006 (90.8%) underwent the procedure. Of the patients assigned to drug therapy, 301 (27.5%) ultimately received catheter ablation. In the intention-to-treat analysis, over a median follow-up of 48.5 months, the primary end point occurred in 8.0% (n = 89) of patients in the ablation group vs 9.2% (n = 101) of patients in the drug therapy group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86 [95% CI, 0.65-1.15]; P = .30). Among the secondary end points, outcomes in the ablation group vs the drug therapy group, respectively, were 5.2% vs 6.1% for all-cause mortality (HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.60-1.21]; P = .38), 51.7% vs 58.1% for death or cardiovascular hospitalization (HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.74-0.93]; P = .001), and 49.9% vs 69.5% for AF recurrence (HR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.45-0.60]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with AF, the strategy of catheter ablation, compared with medical therapy, did not significantly reduce the primary composite end point of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. However, the estimated treatment effect of catheter ablation was affected by lower-than-expected event rates and treatment crossovers, which should be considered in interpreting the results of the trial. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00911508.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2019.0693

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 13 references

Cited by

See all 1,503

Metadata

Authors
Packer, D. L., Mark, D. B., Robb, R. A., Monahan, K. H., Bahnson, T. D., Poole, J. E., Noseworthy, P. A., Rosenberg, Y. D., Jeffries, N., Mitchell, L. B., Flaker, G. C., Pokushalov, E., Romanov, A., Bunch, T. J., Noelker, G., Ardashev, A., Revishvili, A., Wilber, D. J., Cappato, R., Kuck, K.-H., Hindricks, G., Davies, D. W., Kowey, P. R., Naccarelli, G. V., Reiffel, J. A., Piccini, J. P., Silverstein, A. P., Al-Khalidi, H. R., Lee, K. L., & for the CABANA Investigators
Venue
JAMA
Published
2019-04-02
Volume
321
Issue
13
Pages
1261
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2920804236
Cited by
1,503
References
13
FWCI
125.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effect of Catheter Ablation vs Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy on Mortality, Stroke, Bleeding, and Cardiac Arrest Among Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: The CABANA Randomized Clinical Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.2019.0693
The paper
Packer, D. L., Mark, D. B., Robb, R. A., Monahan, K. H., Bahnson, T. D., Poole, J. E., Noseworthy, P. A., Rosenberg, Y. D., Jeffries, N., Mitchell, L. B., Flaker, G. C., Pokushalov, E., Romanov, A., Bunch, T. J., Noelker, G., Ardashev, A., Revishvili, A., Wilber, D. J., Cappato, R., . . . for the CABANA Investigators. (2019). Effect of Catheter Ablation vs Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy on Mortality, Stroke, Bleeding, and Cardiac Arrest Among Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: The CABANA Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.0693

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.