ArticleHeart rhythm O22023
Safety and acute efficacy of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation with pulsed field ablation vs thermal energy ablation: A meta-analysis of single proportions.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pentaspline Pulsed Field Ablation Versus High-Power Short-Duration/Very High-Power Short-Duration Radiofrequency Ablation in Atrial Fibrillation: A Meta-Analysis.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2025Pooled it
- Pulsed field ablation versus thermal energy ablation for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of procedural efficiency, safety, and efficacy.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2024Pooled it
- Feasibility and acute outcomes of cavotricuspid isthmus ablation using the circular-array pulsed field system.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2026Article
- PulseSelect vs FARAPULSE pulsed field ablation: Comparative analysis of myocardial, neural-injury and hemolysis biomarkers and short-term outcomes.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2026Article
- Pulsed Field Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Obesity: Reassessing Risk, Safety, and Success.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- High-power, very-high-power, and low-power radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation: A Bayesian network meta-analysis.Heart rhythm O2 · 2026Article
- Trend Analyses on Interventional Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation From 2016 to 2022: Insights From a Multicenter Hospital Database of Left Atrial Catheter Ablation Cases.Clinical cardiology · 2026Article
- Comparative Studies of Different Ablation Techniques for Atrial Fibrillation.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
- Evolution in electrophysiology 100 years after Einthoven: translational and computational innovations in rhythm control of atrial fibrillation.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2024Review
- Use of pulse field ablation in the treatment of an atrial tachycardia: A case report.Clinical case reports · 2024Article
- Pulsed field ablation versus thermal energy ablation for atrial fibrillation: the Pulse Era is arriving.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2024Article
- Meta-analysis of Pulsed Field Ablation Versus Thermal Ablation for Pulmonary Vein Isolation in AF: A Broad Overview Focusing on Efficacy, Safety and Outcomes.Arrhythmia & electrophysiology review · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pulsed field ablation (PFA) has emerged as a novel energy source for the ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) using ultrarapid electrical pulses to induce cell death via electroporation. Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the safety and acute efficacy of ablation for AF with PFA vs thermal energy sources. Methods: We performed an extensive literature search and systematic review of studies that evaluated the safety and efficacy of ablation for AF with PFA and compared them to landmark clinical trials for ablation of AF with thermal energy sources. Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation was used to establish variance of raw proportions followed by the inverse with the random-effects model to combine the transformed proportions and generate the pooled prevalence and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: We included 24 studies for a total of 5203 patients who underwent AF ablation. Among these patients, 54.6% (n = 2842) underwent PFA and 45.4% (n = 2361) underwent thermal ablation. There were significantly fewer periprocedural complications in the PFA group (2.05%; 95% CI 0.94-3.46) compared to the thermal ablation group (7.75%; 95% CI 5.40-10.47) ( Conclusion: Based on the results of this meta-analysis, PFA was associated with lower rates of periprocedural complications and similar rates of acute procedural success and recurrent AF with up to 1 year of follow-up compared to ablation with thermal energy sources.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.