ArticleJournal of cardiovascular development and disease2024
Pulsed Field Ablation in Atrial Fibrillation: Initial Experience of the Efficacy and Safety in Pulmonary Vein Isolation and Beyond.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular development and disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pulsed field ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation: meta-analysis of pulmonary vein isolation with or without posterior wall isolation.Scientific reports · 2026Pooled it
- The potential value of serum neuron-specific enolase in screening for silent cerebral infarction following radiofrequency catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Regional differences in pulsed field ablation (PFA) adoption for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) with additional posterior wall ablation (PWA) in Asia remains unknown. We hereby report our experience on the safety and efficacy of PFA in AF ablation. Consecutive AF patients who underwent PFA from September 2022 to January 2024 were included. The primary efficacy endpoint was freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence after a 90-day blanking period at 12 months. Safety endpoints included 30 days of all-cause death, cardiac tamponade, stroke, myocardial infarction, and heart failure hospitalization. One hundred and one (72.3% males, 79.2% pAF) patients underwent PFA for AF. Thirty-one (30.7%) had structural heart disease with mean LVEF of 57.4 ± 8.1% and CHA2DS2-VASc score of 1.4 ± 1.3. Twenty-nine (28.7%) underwent additional PWA (PVI + PWA) using PFA. PWA was acutely successful in all patients. Patients who underwent PWA were more likely to have persistent AF and require general anesthesia and electroanatomic mapping (all
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.