ArticleJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2024
Next-generation atrial fibrillation ablation: clinical performance of pulsed-field ablation and very high-power short-duration radiofrequency.
Article in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 4 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of pulsed field ablation and very high-power short-duration ablation for atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Pooled 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
- Efficacy and Safety of Pulsed-Field Versus High-Power Short-Duration Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis With Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2025Pooled it
- Pulsed Field Ablation Versus Very High-Power Short-Duration Radiofrequency Ablation in Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy and Safety of a Novel Filtering Function to Reduce Radiation Exposure During Catheter Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation.Circulation reports · 2026Article
- Pulsed Field Ablation Versus Thermal Ablation for First-Time Pulmonary Vein Isolation in Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of arrhythmia · 2026Article
- Pulsed Field Ablation Versus High-Power Short-Duration Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation-A Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPulsed-field energy (PFA) and very high-power short-duration radiofrequency (vHPSD-RF) are two novel ablation methods for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). Both PFA and vHPSD-RF show promise for improving efficacy, safety, and reducing procedure durations. However, direct comparisons between these two techniques are scarce. METHODS AND
resultsRetrospective analysis of 82 patients with symptomatic AF. Of these, 52 patients received PFA and 30 received vHPSD-RF (90 W, 4 s) as index procedure. At the 6-month follow-up, AF recurrence occurred in 4 patients following PFA and 5 patients following vHPSD-RF (p-value = 0.138). Significant improvements in the EHRA and NYHA stages were evident in both PFA (p < 0.001 and p = 0.047, respectively) and vHPSD-RF groups (p = 0.007 and p = 0.012, respectively). The total procedure duration and the left atrial dwell time were significantly shorter in the PFA group (64 ± 19 min vs. 99 ± 32 min, p < 0.001 and 41 ± 12 min vs. 62 ± 29 min, p < 0.001, respectively). The fluoroscopy time and dose area product were significantly higher in PFA (14 ± 6 vs. 9 ± 5 min, p < 0.001 and 14 ± 9 vs. 11 ± 9 Gy cm
conclusionBased on this retrospective single-center study, PFA and vHPSD-RF were associated with similar effectiveness and safety profiles. PFA was linked to shorter procedure times and higher radiation exposure compared to vHPSD-RF.
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.