SynthesisReviews in cardiovascular medicine2024
Safety and Efficacy of Pulse Field Ablation in the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation and Its Comparison with Traditional Thermal Ablation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Reviews in cardiovascular medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pulsed field ablation versus thermal ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2026Article
- Pulsed-field ablation versus thermal ablation in the management of atrial fibrillation: A narrative review.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2026Review
- 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
- Perioperative parameters and myocardial necrosis: a real-world comparison of Farapulse and Varipulse.Cardiology journal · 2026Article
- Pulsed Field Ablation: A Review of Preclinical and Clinical Studies.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pulsed field ablation (PFA) and to compare it with the efficacy and safety of traditional thermal ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were searched for randomized or observational studies exploring the efficacy and safety of PFA and comparing PFA with traditional thermal ablation in patients with AF. Results: A total of 4437 patients from 16 studies that only included PFA as the ablation method and 1792 patients from 9 comparing PFA to traditional thermal ablation were included in the final analysis. In studies that considered PFA alone, the freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence was 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76-0.84), and the incidence of periprocedural complications was 0.03 (95% CI 0.02-0.05). In comparative studies, there was no significant difference in the freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence (odds ratio (OR) 1.24, 95% CI 0.90-1.72) and the incidence of periprocedural complications (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.37-1.48) of PFA compared to that of traditional thermal ablation. In the subgroup with a follow-up period less than 12 months, PFA had higher freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence rate compared to thermal ablation (OR 2.19, 95% CI 1.14-4.20). Conclusions: PFA is a safe and effective catheter ablation method that is not inferior to the traditional and well-established thermal ablation. It can be used as a treatment of choice for patients with AF. The PROSPERO registration: CRD42023473026, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=473026.
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.