Ablation vs antiarrhythmic drug: Periprocedural complications and other safety outcomes
It is very uncertain whether ablation changes periprocedural complications and other safety outcomes compared with antiarrhythmic drug (very low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Ablation vs antiarrhythmic drug Periprocedural complications and other safety outcomes · people with non‐paroxysmal atrial fibrillation It is very uncertain whether ablation changes periprocedural complications and other safety outcomes compared with antiarrhythmic drug (very low certainty). Efficacy and safety of ablation for people with non‐paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (2016) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.94 [0.16, 5.68] | 3 studies · 261 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Efficacy and safety of ablation for people with non‐paroxysmal atrial fibrillation 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.