Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 174

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Long‐Term Clinical Efficacy and Risk of Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in the Elderly

ZADO, ERICA, CALLANS, DAVID J., RILEY, MICHAEL, HUTCHINSON, MATHEW, GARCIA, FERMIN, BALA, RUPA, LIN, DAVID, COOPER, JOSHUA, VERDINO, RALPH, RUSSO, ANDREA M., DIXIT, SANJAY, GERSTENFELD, EDWARD, MARCHLINSKI, FRANCIS E.·2008·Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology

Abstract

Introduction: The number of elderly patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is increasing rapidly, and the safety and efficacy of catheter ablation in this demographic group has not been established. Methods: Over a 7‐year period we studied 1,165 consecutive patients undergoing 1,506 AF ablation procedures using a consistent ablation protocol that included proximal ostial pulmonary vein (PV) isolation and focal ablation of non‐PV AF triggers. Outcome was analyzed for three distinct age groups: <65 years (group 1; n = 948 patients), 65–74 years (group 2; n = 185 patients), and ≥75 years (group 3; n = 32 patients) based on the age at the initial procedure. Results: There was no significant difference in AF control (89% in group 1, 84% in group 2, and 86% in group 3, P = NS) during a mean follow‐up of 27 months. Major complication rates were also comparable (1.6% in group 1, 1.7% in group 2, 2.9% in group 3, P = NS) between the three groups. There was no difference in the left atrial size, percentage with left ventricular ejection fraction <50%, or percentage with paroxysmal versus more persistent forms of atrial fibrillation. However, older patients were more likely to be women (20% in group 1, 34% in group 2, and 56% in group 3, P < 0.001) and have hypertension and/or structural heart disease (56% in group 1 vs 68% in group 2 vs 88% in group 3; P < 0.001). There was a strong trend demonstrating that older patients were less likely to undergo repeat ablation (26% vs 27% vs 9%) to achieve AF control and more likely to remain on antiarrhythmic drugs (20% vs 29% vs 37%; P < 0.05). Conclusions: Elderly patients with AF undergoing catheter ablation therapy are represented by a higher proportion of women and have a higher incidence of hypertension/structural heart disease. To achieve a similar level of AF control, there appears to be no increased risk from the ablation procedure, but elderly patients are more likely to remain on antiarrhythmic drugs.

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 · 10.1111/j.1540-8167.2008.01183.x

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 174

Metadata

Authors
ZADO, E., CALLANS, D. J., RILEY, M., HUTCHINSON, M., GARCIA, F., BALA, R., LIN, D., COOPER, J., VERDINO, R., RUSSO, A. M., DIXIT, S., GERSTENFELD, E., & MARCHLINSKI, F. E.
Venue
Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2008-06
Volume
19
Issue
6
Pages
621-626
ISSN
  • 1045-3873 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-8167
OpenAlex
W2125252722
Cited by
174
References
4
FWCI
9.68
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: Long‐Term Clinical Efficacy and Risk of Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in the Elderly. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1540-8167.2008.01183.x
The paper
ZADO, E., CALLANS, D. J., RILEY, M., HUTCHINSON, M., GARCIA, F., BALA, R., LIN, D., COOPER, J., VERDINO, R., RUSSO, A. M., DIXIT, S., GERSTENFELD, E., & MARCHLINSKI, F. E. (2008). Long‐Term Clinical Efficacy and Risk of Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in the Elderly. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-8167.2008.01183.x

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.