Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 305

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Surgical treatment of atrial fibrillation; a systematic review☆

Khargi, Krishna, Hutten, Barbara A., Lemke, Bernd, Deneke, Thomas·2005·European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery

Abstract

UNLABELLED: In this review the efficacies of the alternative sources of energy (radiofrequency-microwave and cryo ablation; group I) and the classical 'cut and sew' Cox-Maze III (group II), which claims a 97-99% sinus rhythm (SR) success rate, were evaluated in the surgical treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). A computerized search in the PubMed and Medline database was conducted. Only original, English written, clinical manuscripts on the surgical treatment of atrial fibrillation using an alternative source of energy or the classical 'cut and sew' Cox-Maze III technique, citing the clinical outcome, including the postoperative sinus rhythm, were included. The data included in this review were the number and percentage of treated patients, gender distribution, the type of arrhythmia and surgery, postoperative morbidity, pacemaker implantation rate, 30-day mortality, survival- and sinus rhythm conversion rates. Mean values for age, left atrial diameter, preoperative duration of AF and left ventricular ejection fraction were also recorded. Forty-eight studies were included comprising 3832 patients; 2279 in group I and 1553 in group II. The mean duration of AF, left atrial diameter and LVEF were 5.4 vs. 5.5 years (p=0.90), 55.5 vs. 57.8 mm (p=0.23) and 57 vs. 58% (p=0.63). The postoperative SR rates for group I and II were 78.3 vs. 84.9% (p=0.03). However, the "cut and sew" Cox-Maze III was conducted in younger patients (55.0 vs. 61.2 years; p=0.005), more often to treat paroxysmal (22.9 vs. 8.0%; p=0.05) and lone AF (19.3 vs. 1.6%). Alternative sources of energy were predominantly used to treat permanent AF (92.0%), almost always as a concomitant surgical procedure (98.4%) and increasingly in combination with non-mitral valve surgery (18.5%). After correction for these variations, the postoperative SR conversion rates for group I and II did not differ significantly anymore (p=0.260). CONCLUSIONS: We could not identify any significant difference in the postoperative SR conversion rates between the classical 'cut and sew' and the alternative sources of energy, which were used to treat atrial fibrillation.

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 · 10.1016/j.ejcts.2004.11.003

Cites

38 of 38 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 38 references

Cited by

See all 305

Metadata

Authors
Khargi, K., Hutten, B. A., Lemke, B., & Deneke, T.
Venue
European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery
Published
2005-02
Volume
27
Issue
2
Pages
258-265
ISSN
1010-7940 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2146596420
Cited by
305
References
38
FWCI
3.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Surgical treatment of atrial fibrillation; a systematic review☆. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.ejcts.2004.11.003
The paper
Khargi, K., Hutten, B. A., Lemke, B., & Deneke, T. (2005). Surgical treatment of atrial fibrillation; a systematic review☆. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejcts.2004.11.003

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.