↓ Skip to main content

Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation with Heart Failure

Overview of attention for article published in New England Journal of Medicine, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
327 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
462 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation with Heart Failure
Published in
New England Journal of Medicine, February 2018
DOI 10.1056/nejmoa1707855
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nassir F. Marrouche, Johannes Brachmann, Dietrich Andresen, Jürgen Siebels, Lucas Boersma, Luc Jordaens, Béla Merkely, Evgeny Pokushalov, Prashanthan Sanders, Jochen Proff, Heribert Schunkert, Hildegard Christ, Jürgen Vogt, Dietmar Bänsch

Abstract

Background Mortality and morbidity are higher among patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure than among those with heart failure alone. Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation has been proposed as a means of improving outcomes among patients with heart failure who are otherwise receiving appropriate treatment. Methods We randomly assigned patients with symptomatic paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation who did not have a response to antiarrhythmic drugs, had unacceptable side effects, or were unwilling to take these drugs to undergo either catheter ablation (179 patients) or medical therapy (rate or rhythm control) (184 patients) for atrial fibrillation in addition to guidelines-based therapy for heart failure. All the patients had New York Heart Association class II, III, or IV heart failure, a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less, and an implanted defibrillator. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause or hospitalization for worsening heart failure. Results After a median follow-up of 37.8 months, the primary composite end point occurred in significantly fewer patients in the ablation group than in the medical-therapy group (51 patients [28.5%] vs. 82 patients [44.6%]; hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43 to 0.87; P=0.007). Significantly fewer patients in the ablation group died from any cause (24 [13.4%] vs. 46 [25.0%]; hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.86; P=0.01), were hospitalized for worsening heart failure (37 [20.7%] vs. 66 [35.9%]; hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.83; P=0.004), or died from cardiovascular causes (20 [11.2%] vs. 41 [22.3%]; hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.84; P=0.009). Conclusions Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in patients with heart failure was associated with a significantly lower rate of a composite end point of death from any cause or hospitalization for worsening heart failure than was medical therapy. (Funded by Biotronik; CASTLE-AF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00643188 .).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 987 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 462 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 462 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 81 18%
Unspecified 76 16%
Other 68 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 50 11%
Student > Postgraduate 43 9%
Other 144 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 274 59%
Unspecified 132 29%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 3%
Engineering 10 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 2%
Other 26 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 746. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 September 2019.
All research outputs
#7,374
of 13,528,187 outputs
Outputs from New England Journal of Medicine
#373
of 25,598 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#415
of 349,084 outputs
Outputs of similar age from New England Journal of Medicine
#27
of 270 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,528,187 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,598 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 63.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 349,084 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 270 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.