Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 891

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drugs for Atrial Fibrillation: The A4 Study

Open access
Jaïs, Pierre, Cauchemez, Bruno, Macle, Laurent, Daoud, Emile, Khairy, Paul, Subbiah, Rajesh, Hocini, Mélèze, Extramiana, Fabrice, Sacher, Fréderic, Bordachar, Pierre, Klein, George, Weerasooriya, Rukshen, Clémenty, Jacques, Haïssaguerre, Michel·2008·Circulation

Abstract

Background— The mainstay of treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF) remains pharmacological; however, catheter ablation has increasingly been used over the last decade. The relative merits of each strategy have not been extensively studied. Methods and Results— We conducted a randomized multicenter comparison of these 2 treatment strategies in patients with paroxysmal AF resistant to at least 1 antiarrhythmic drug. The primary end point was absence of recurrent AF between months 3 and 12, absence of recurrent AF after up to 3 ablation procedures, or changes in antiarrhythmic drugs during the first 3 months. Ablation consisted of pulmonary vein isolation in all cases, whereas additional extrapulmonary vein lesions were at the discretion of the physician. Crossover was permitted at 3 months in case of failure. Echocardiographic data, symptom score, exercise capacity, quality of life, and AF burden were evaluated at 3, 6, and 12 months by the supervising committee. Of 149 eligible patients, 112 (18 women [16%]; age, 51.1±11.1 years) were enrolled and randomized to ablation (n=53) or “new” antiarrhythmic drugs alone or in combination (n=59). Crossover from the antiarrhythmic drugs and ablation groups occurred in 37 (63%) and 5 patients (9%), respectively ( P =0.0001). At the 1-year follow-up, 13 of 55 patients (23%) and 46 of 52 patients (89%) had no recurrence of AF in the antiarrhythmic drug and ablation groups, respectively ( P <0.0001). Symptom score, exercise capacity, and quality of life were significantly higher in the ablation group. Conclusion— This randomized multicenter study demonstrates the superiority of catheter ablation over antiarrhythmic drugs in patients with AF with regard to maintenance of sinus rhythm and improvement in symptoms, exercise capacity, and quality of life.

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/circulationaha.108.772582

Cites

5 of 5 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 5 references

Cited by

See all 891

Metadata

Authors
Jaïs, P., Cauchemez, B., Macle, L., Daoud, E., Khairy, P., Subbiah, R., Hocini, M., Extramiana, F., Sacher, F., Bordachar, P., Klein, G., Weerasooriya, R., Clémenty, J., & Haïssaguerre, M.
Venue
Circulation
Published
2008-12-09
Volume
118
Issue
24
Pages
2498-2505
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
OpenAlex
W2133730204
Cited by
891
References
5
FWCI
42.46
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: Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drugs for Atrial Fibrillation: The A4 Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/circulationaha.108.772582
The paper
Jaïs, P., Cauchemez, B., Macle, L., Daoud, E., Khairy, P., Subbiah, R., Hocini, M., Extramiana, F., Sacher, F., Bordachar, P., Klein, G., Weerasooriya, R., Clémenty, J., & Haïssaguerre, M. (2008). Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drugs for Atrial Fibrillation: The A4 Study. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.108.772582

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.