Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39673645›Full record

ArticleJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2026

Efficacy, safety, and somatosensory comparison of pulsed-field ablation and thermal ablation: outcomes from a 2-year follow-up.

Jiale Wang, Xinqi Wang, Wei Liu, Haoyuan Hu, Jiahui Zhao, Changhao Hu, Weiwen Zhao, Youran Qin, Kaiqing Yang, Songyun Wang and 1 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Jiale Wang *Department of Cardiology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Cardiac Autonomic Nervous System Research Center of Wuhan University, Cardiovascular Research Institute, Hubei Key Laboratory of Cardiology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430061, China.
Xinqi Wang *Department of Cardiology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Cardiac Autonomic Nervous System Research Center of Wuhan University, Cardiovascular Research Institute, Hubei Key Laboratory of Cardiology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430061, China.
Wei Liu *Department of Cardiology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Cardiac Autonomic Nervous System Research Center of Wuhan University, Cardiovascular Research Institute, Hubei Key Laboratory of Cardiology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430061, China.
Haoyuan HuDepartment of Cardiology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Cardiac Autonomic Nervous System Research Center of Wuhan University, Cardiovascular Research Institute, Hubei Key Laboratory of Cardiology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430061, China.
Jiahui ZhaoDepartment of Cardiology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Cardiac Autonomic Nervous System Research Center of Wuhan University, Cardiovascular Research Institute, Hubei Key Laboratory of Cardiology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430061, China.
Changhao HuDepartment of Cardiology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Cardiac Autonomic Nervous System Research Center of Wuhan University, Cardiovascular Research Institute, Hubei Key Laboratory of Cardiology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430061, China.
Weiwen ZhaoDepartment of Cardiology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Cardiac Autonomic Nervous System Research Center of Wuhan University, Cardiovascular Research Institute, Hubei Key Laboratory of Cardiology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430061, China.
Youran QinDepartment of Cardiology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Cardiac Autonomic Nervous System Research Center of Wuhan University, Cardiovascular Research Institute, Hubei Key Laboratory of Cardiology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430061, China.
Kaiqing YangDepartment of Cardiology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Cardiac Autonomic Nervous System Research Center of Wuhan University, Cardiovascular Research Institute, Hubei Key Laboratory of Cardiology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430061, China.
Songyun WangDepartment of Cardiology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Cardiac Autonomic Nervous System Research Center of Wuhan University, Cardiovascular Research Institute, Hubei Key Laboratory of Cardiology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430061, China. wsy7982@126.com.
Hong JiangDepartment of Cardiology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Cardiac Autonomic Nervous System Research Center of Wuhan University, Cardiovascular Research Institute, Hubei Key Laboratory of Cardiology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, 430061, China. hong-jiang@whu.edu.cn.

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China No.2042018kf0102Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University No. RMYD2018M37
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPulsed-field ablation (PFA), as a nonthermal ablative approach for atrial fibrillation, has attracted much attention in recent years. And there are few comparative studies on PFA versus conventional thermal ablation, including radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and cryoballoon ablation (CBA). The efficacy, safety, and somatic sensation of PFA and thermal ablation need to be further compared.

methodsA total of 109 patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation were divided into three groups (27 in the PFA group, 41 in the CBA group, and 41 in the RFA group), and the operation characteristics, efficacy, safety, and somatic sensation were recorded and analyzed. All patients were followed for 2 years.

resultsAll pulmonary veins were successfully isolated except for 1 pulmonary vein that was not successfully isolated during the CBA process (PFA vs. CBA vs. RFA = 100% vs. 99% vs. 100%). The total operation time for PFA is considerably shorter than that for thermal ablation (PFA vs. CBA vs. RFA = 65.28 ± 22.78 min vs. 75.38 ± 18.53 min vs. 96.26 ± 23.23 min, P < 0.001), and the same applies to all the sub-phases. PFA was similarly more dominant in terms of somatosensory perception, mainly in headache (PFA vs. CBA = 1.17 ± 0.48 vs. 2.31 ± 1.06, P < 0.001) and chest pain (PFA vs. RFA = 1.45 ± 0.88 vs. 2.52 ± 1.06, P < 0.001). All these three groups demonstrated good maintenance rates (PFA vs. CBA vs. RFA = 85.00% vs. 80.49% vs. 78.05%, 2 years after operation).

conclusionPFA demonstrates its excellent somatic sensation and favorable safety. And it also showed a great immediate success and maintenance rate, which is not inferior to thermal ablation.

Indexed as

Atrial FibrillationCatheter AblationCryosurgeryPulmonary VeinsAgedFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedTreatment OutcomeAtrial fibrillation (AF)Catheter ablationCryoballoon ablation (CBA)Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI)Pulsed-field ablation (PFA)Radiofrequency ablation (RFA)

Identifiers

PMID39673645

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.