ArticleHeart rhythm O22024
Comparison of Cryoballoon vs. Pulsed Field Ablation in Patients with Symptomatic Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation (SINGLE SHOT CHAMPION): Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Autonomic effects and ablation success after pulsed field and cryoballoon ablation: a SINGLE SHOT CHAMPION substudy.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 · 2026Trial
- Pulsed-field ablation versus cryoballoon ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation: A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2026Review
- Pulmonary vein isolation with a pulsed field system leads to lower levels of miR-23a-3p in the left atrial blood compared to a cryoballoon.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Single-shot devices are increasingly used for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in atrial fibrillation (AF). The Arctic Front cryoballoon is the most frequently used single-shot technology. A recently developed novel pulsed field ablation (PFA) device (FARAPULSE) has been introduced with the aim to improve procedural safety and efficacy. Objective: This study will compare the novel FARAPULSE PFA device and the Arctic Front cryoballoon for first PVI in patients with symptomatic paroxysmal AF. Methods: SINGLE SHOT CHAMPION is a multicenter, randomized controlled trial with blinded endpoint adjudication by an independent clinical events committee. Overall, 210 patients with paroxysmal AF undergoing their PVI are randomized 1:1 between PFA and cryoballoon ablation. Continuous rhythm monitoring with an implantable cardiac monitor is performed in all patients. Results: The primary endpoint is time to first recurrence of any atrial tachyarrhythmia (AF and/or organized atrial tachyarrhythmia) lasting ≥120 seconds and identified by the implantable cardiac monitor within 91 and 365 days postablation. The composite procedural safety endpoint includes cardiac tamponade requiring drainage, persistent phrenic nerve palsy, vascular complications requiring intervention, stroke/transient ischemic attack, atrioesophageal fistula, and death occurring during or up to 30 days after the procedure. Key secondary endpoints include (1) increase in high-sensitivity troponin on day 1 postablation, (2) analysis of postablation 3-dimensional electroanatomic mapping (first 25 patients per study group), (3) AF burden, and (4) quality-of-life changes. Conclusion: SINGLE SHOT CHAMPION will evaluate the efficacy and safety of PVI using the novel FARAPULSE PFA for patients with symptomatic paroxysmal AF.
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.