Cargando…

Comparing efficacy and safety in catheter ablation strategies for atrial fibrillation: protocol of a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

INTRODUCTION: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained arrhythmia. Catheter ablation (CA) of AF is an increasingly offered therapeutic approach, primary to relieve AF-related symptoms. Despite the development of new ablation approaches, there is no consensus regarding the most efficient...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Charitakis, Emmanouil, Karlsson, Lars O, Rizas, Kostantinos, Almroth, Henrik, Hassel Jönsson, Anders, Schweiler, Jonas, Sideris, Skevos, Tsartsalis, Dimitrios, Dragioti, Elena, Chaimani, Anna
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7684831/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33234655
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041819
_version_ 1783613076517421056
author Charitakis, Emmanouil
Karlsson, Lars O
Rizas, Kostantinos
Almroth, Henrik
Hassel Jönsson, Anders
Schweiler, Jonas
Sideris, Skevos
Tsartsalis, Dimitrios
Dragioti, Elena
Chaimani, Anna
author_facet Charitakis, Emmanouil
Karlsson, Lars O
Rizas, Kostantinos
Almroth, Henrik
Hassel Jönsson, Anders
Schweiler, Jonas
Sideris, Skevos
Tsartsalis, Dimitrios
Dragioti, Elena
Chaimani, Anna
author_sort Charitakis, Emmanouil
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained arrhythmia. Catheter ablation (CA) of AF is an increasingly offered therapeutic approach, primary to relieve AF-related symptoms. Despite the development of new ablation approaches, there is no consensus regarding the most efficient ablation strategy. The objective of this network meta-analysis (NMA) is to compare the efficacy and safety of all different CA approaches for the treatment of patients with paroxysmal (PAF) and non-PAF (non-PAF). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a systematic search to identify randomised controlled trials of different CA approaches for the treatment of PAF and non-PAF, through the final search date of 1 March 2020. Information sources will include major bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science and CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries. Our primary outcomes will be the efficacy (recurrence-free survival) and safety of different CA approaches for the treatment of AF. Secondary outcomes will be all-cause mortality and procedural time. An NMA will be performed to determine the relative effects of different catheter ablation approaches (such as pulmonary vein isolation alone or in combination with ablation lines, ablation of complex fractionated atrial electrograms, etc). In PAF, a separate analysis will be performed including different energy sources (such as radiofrequency, cryogenic and laser energy). Risk of bias assessment and sensitivity analyses will be conducted to assess the robustness of the findings to potential bias. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval will be needed because data are collected from previous studies. The results will be presented through peer-review journals and conference presentation. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020169494.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7684831
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76848312020-11-30 Comparing efficacy and safety in catheter ablation strategies for atrial fibrillation: protocol of a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials Charitakis, Emmanouil Karlsson, Lars O Rizas, Kostantinos Almroth, Henrik Hassel Jönsson, Anders Schweiler, Jonas Sideris, Skevos Tsartsalis, Dimitrios Dragioti, Elena Chaimani, Anna BMJ Open Cardiovascular Medicine INTRODUCTION: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained arrhythmia. Catheter ablation (CA) of AF is an increasingly offered therapeutic approach, primary to relieve AF-related symptoms. Despite the development of new ablation approaches, there is no consensus regarding the most efficient ablation strategy. The objective of this network meta-analysis (NMA) is to compare the efficacy and safety of all different CA approaches for the treatment of patients with paroxysmal (PAF) and non-PAF (non-PAF). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a systematic search to identify randomised controlled trials of different CA approaches for the treatment of PAF and non-PAF, through the final search date of 1 March 2020. Information sources will include major bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science and CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries. Our primary outcomes will be the efficacy (recurrence-free survival) and safety of different CA approaches for the treatment of AF. Secondary outcomes will be all-cause mortality and procedural time. An NMA will be performed to determine the relative effects of different catheter ablation approaches (such as pulmonary vein isolation alone or in combination with ablation lines, ablation of complex fractionated atrial electrograms, etc). In PAF, a separate analysis will be performed including different energy sources (such as radiofrequency, cryogenic and laser energy). Risk of bias assessment and sensitivity analyses will be conducted to assess the robustness of the findings to potential bias. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval will be needed because data are collected from previous studies. The results will be presented through peer-review journals and conference presentation. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020169494. BMJ Publishing Group 2020-11-23 /pmc/articles/PMC7684831/ /pubmed/33234655 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041819 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Cardiovascular Medicine
Charitakis, Emmanouil
Karlsson, Lars O
Rizas, Kostantinos
Almroth, Henrik
Hassel Jönsson, Anders
Schweiler, Jonas
Sideris, Skevos
Tsartsalis, Dimitrios
Dragioti, Elena
Chaimani, Anna
Comparing efficacy and safety in catheter ablation strategies for atrial fibrillation: protocol of a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
title Comparing efficacy and safety in catheter ablation strategies for atrial fibrillation: protocol of a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
title_full Comparing efficacy and safety in catheter ablation strategies for atrial fibrillation: protocol of a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
title_fullStr Comparing efficacy and safety in catheter ablation strategies for atrial fibrillation: protocol of a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
title_full_unstemmed Comparing efficacy and safety in catheter ablation strategies for atrial fibrillation: protocol of a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
title_short Comparing efficacy and safety in catheter ablation strategies for atrial fibrillation: protocol of a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
title_sort comparing efficacy and safety in catheter ablation strategies for atrial fibrillation: protocol of a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
topic Cardiovascular Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7684831/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33234655
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041819
work_keys_str_mv AT charitakisemmanouil comparingefficacyandsafetyincatheterablationstrategiesforatrialfibrillationprotocolofanetworkmetaanalysisofrandomisedcontrolledtrials
AT karlssonlarso comparingefficacyandsafetyincatheterablationstrategiesforatrialfibrillationprotocolofanetworkmetaanalysisofrandomisedcontrolledtrials
AT rizaskostantinos comparingefficacyandsafetyincatheterablationstrategiesforatrialfibrillationprotocolofanetworkmetaanalysisofrandomisedcontrolledtrials
AT almrothhenrik comparingefficacyandsafetyincatheterablationstrategiesforatrialfibrillationprotocolofanetworkmetaanalysisofrandomisedcontrolledtrials
AT hasseljonssonanders comparingefficacyandsafetyincatheterablationstrategiesforatrialfibrillationprotocolofanetworkmetaanalysisofrandomisedcontrolledtrials
AT schweilerjonas comparingefficacyandsafetyincatheterablationstrategiesforatrialfibrillationprotocolofanetworkmetaanalysisofrandomisedcontrolledtrials
AT siderisskevos comparingefficacyandsafetyincatheterablationstrategiesforatrialfibrillationprotocolofanetworkmetaanalysisofrandomisedcontrolledtrials
AT tsartsalisdimitrios comparingefficacyandsafetyincatheterablationstrategiesforatrialfibrillationprotocolofanetworkmetaanalysisofrandomisedcontrolledtrials
AT dragiotielena comparingefficacyandsafetyincatheterablationstrategiesforatrialfibrillationprotocolofanetworkmetaanalysisofrandomisedcontrolledtrials
AT chaimanianna comparingefficacyandsafetyincatheterablationstrategiesforatrialfibrillationprotocolofanetworkmetaanalysisofrandomisedcontrolledtrials