Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 329

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 37 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessment of Atrioventricular Junction Ablation and VVIR Pacemaker Versus Pharmacological Treatment in Patients With Heart Failure and Chronic Atrial Fibrillation: A Randomized, Controlled Study

Brignole, Michele, Menozzi, Carlo, Gianfranchi, Lorella, Musso, Giacomo, Mureddu, Roberto, Bottoni, Nicola, Lolli, Gino·1998·Circulation

Abstract

Background —Uncontrolled studies have suggested that atrioventricular junction ablation and pacemaker implantation have beneficial effects on quality of life in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods and Results —We performed a multicenter, controlled, randomized, 12-month evaluation of the clinical effects of atrioventricular junction ablation and VVIR pacemaker (Abl+Pm) versus pharmacological (drug) treatment in 66 patients with chronic (lasting >6 months) AF who had clinically manifest heart failure and heart rate >90 bpm on 3 standard ECGs recorded at rest during stable clinical conditions on different days. Before completion of the study, withdrawals occurred in 8 patients of the drug group and in 4 patients of the Abl+Pm group. At the end of the 12 months, the 28 Abl+Pm patients who completed the study showed lower scores in palpitations (−78%; P =0.000) and effort dyspnea (−22%; P =0.05) than the 26 of the drug group. Lower scores, although not significant, were also observed for exercise intolerance (−20%), easy fatigue (−17%), chest discomfort (−50%), Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (−14%), New York Heart Association functional classification (−4%), and Activity scale (−12%). The intrapatient comparison between enrollment and month 12 showed that in the Abl+Pm group, all variables except easy fatigue improved significantly from 14% to 82%. However, because an improvement was also observed in the drug group, the difference between the 2 groups was significant only for palpitations ( P =0.000), effort dyspnea ( P =0.01), exercise intolerance ( P =0.005), easy fatigue ( P =0.02), and chest discomfort ( P =0.02). Cardiac performance, evaluated by means of standard echocardiogram and exercise test, did not differ significantly between the 2 groups and remained stable over time. Conclusions —In patients with heart failure and chronic AF, Abl+Pm treatment is effective and superior to drug therapy in controlling symptoms, although its efficacy appears to be less than that observed in uncontrolled studies because some improvement can also be expected in medically treated patients. Cardiac performance is not modified by the treatment.

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 · 10.1161/01.cir.98.10.953

Cites

37 of 37 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 37 references

Cited by

See all 329

Metadata

Authors
Brignole, M., Menozzi, C., Gianfranchi, L., Musso, G., Mureddu, R., Bottoni, N., & Lolli, G.
Venue
Circulation
Published
1998-09-08
Volume
98
Issue
10
Pages
953-960
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2109788838
Cited by
329
References
37
FWCI
17.32
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: Assessment of Atrioventricular Junction Ablation and VVIR Pacemaker Versus Pharmacological Treatment in Patients With Heart Failure and Chronic Atrial Fibrillation: A Randomized, Controlled Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.cir.98.10.953
The paper
Brignole, M., Menozzi, C., Gianfranchi, L., Musso, G., Mureddu, R., Bottoni, N., & Lolli, G. (1998). Assessment of Atrioventricular Junction Ablation and VVIR Pacemaker Versus Pharmacological Treatment in Patients With Heart Failure and Chronic Atrial Fibrillation: A Randomized, Controlled Study. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.98.10.953

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.