Cited by 268Cardiac Arrhythmias and TreatmentsAtrial Fibrillation Management and OutcomesCardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias

Meta-analysis of ablation of atrial flutter and supraventricular tachycardia

Spector, Peter, Reynolds, Matthew R., Calkins, Hugh, Sondhi, Manu, Xu, Yingxin, Martin, Amber, Williams, Catherine J., Sledge, Isabella·2009·The American Journal of Cardiology

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of typical atrial flutter (AFL) and atrioventricular node-dependent supraventricular tachycardia (SVT) in adult patients. Medline and EMBASE were searched (1990 to 2007) for all study design trials of RFA. Data relating to single- and multiple-procedure success, arrhythmia recurrence, repeat ablation, adverse events, and death were extracted. For RFA in AFL, 18 primary studies with 22 treatment arms and 1,323 patients were identified. Single-procedure success for AFL was 91.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 88.4% to 94.9%). Multiple-procedure success was 97.0% (95% CI 94.7% to 99.4%). Postablation arrhythmia was noted in 13.2% of patients (95% CI 7.5% to 18.9%), while repeat ablation was reported in 8% (95% CI 4.5% to 11.4%). For RFA of SVT, 39 primary studies with 49 treatment arms in 7,693 patients with accessory pathways and atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia were identified. Single-procedure success for SVT was 93.2% (95% CI 90.8% to 95.5%). Multiple-procedure success was 94.6% (95% CI 92.4% to 96.9). Postablation arrhythmia was noted in 5.6% patients (95% CI 4.1% to 7.2%). Repeat ablation occurred in 6.5% (95% CI 4.7% to 8.3%). For AFL studies, all-cause mortality was 0.6%, and adverse events were reported in 0.5% of patients. For SVT studies, all-cause mortality was 0.1%, and adverse events were reported in 2.9% of patients. In conclusion, studies of RFA for the treatment of patients with AFL and SVT report high efficacy rates and low rates of complications.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.amjcard.2009.04.040

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 23 · Cited by 268

Authors
Spector, P., Reynolds, M. R., Calkins, H., Sondhi, M., Xu, Y., Martin, A., Williams, C. J., & Sledge, I.
Affiliations
  • University of Vermont (US)
  • Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
Venue
The American Journal of Cardiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-09
Volume
104
Issue
5
Pages
671-677
ISSN
0002-9149 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2104509861
Cited by
268
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 5
FWCI
1.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The American Journal of Cardiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Biosense Webster
  • Medtronic
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac Arrhythmias and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Atrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac electrophysiology and arrhythmias
Keywords
atrial flutter, supraventricular tachycardia, radiofrequency catheter ablation, procedural success, arrhythmia recurrence, repeat ablation, adverse events, all-cause mortality
MeSH terms
Atrial Flutter, Humans, Tachycardia, Atrioventricular Nodal Reentry, Treatment Outcome, Catheter Ablation

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