ArticleOpen heart2024
Pulsed-field ablation of atrial fibrillation with a pentaspline catheter across National Health Service England centres.
Article in Open heart, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Following Pulsed-Field Ablation Versus Thermal Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation: The PROMs-PFA Study.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2026Article
- Beyond speed: why "skin-to-skin" time should not define quality in atrial fibrillation ablation.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2026Review
- Sex-Based Differences in Symptomatology in the First Month Following Atrial Fibrillation Catheter Ablation.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2025Article
- Vascular access site management during electrophysiology procedures: a European Heart Rhythm Association survey.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 · 2025Article
- Lifestyle and risk factor modification in atrial fibrillation: a European Heart Rhythm Association survey.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 · 2025Article
- Electrophysiology Training in Crisis: The Unintended Consequences of Shape of Training.Arrhythmia & electrophysiology review · 2025Article
- The radiofrequency balloon catheter for pulmonary vein isolation: Current state of play.Indian pacing and electrophysiology journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
26 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPulsed-field ablation (PFA) is a novel modality for pulmonary vein isolation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). We describe the initial uptake and experience of PFA using a pentaspline catheter across selected National Health Service England (NHSE) centres.
methodsData collected by NHSE Specialised Services Development Programme regarding AF ablation procedures using a single-shot, pentaspline, multielectrode PFA catheter (FARAWAVE, Boston Scientific) between June 2022 and August 2024 were aggregated and analysed to examine procedural metrics, acute efficacy and safety outcomes over 3-month follow-up.
results1034 procedures were submitted. The patients were 32.1% female, mean age 63.8±10.7 years, 53.1% paroxysmal AF and 89.7% first-time AF ablation. Procedures were performed by 48 consultant operators at nine NHSE centres, with a mean of 115 procedures per centre (range 25-264). 93.7% of procedures were performed under general anaesthesia. Median skin-to-skin procedure time was 74 min (IQR 55-96 min) and fluoroscopy time 20 min (IQR 15-27 min). Electroanatomical mapping was used in 15.3%. In first-time ablation cases, acute isolation of all pulmonary veins was achieved in 99.5% of patients. Left atrial (LA) posterior wall ablation using the PFA catheter was performed in 11.0% of cases; additional LA radiofrequency ablation was performed in 0.6%. The major and minor acute procedural complication rates were, respectively, 1.3% and 3.1%, with no reports of periprocedural death or atrio-oesophageal fistula. 63.8% of patients were discharged on the day of procedure. Follow-up data were available for 870 procedures (84.1%). In the 3 months following ablation, hospitalisation for arrhythmia occurred in 3.2%, with 0.9% rehospitalised for procedural-related complications.
conclusionIn this real-world, nationwide registry of a pentaspline PFA catheter, efficacy, safety and efficiency outcomes were comparable to those from previous PFA studies in patients with 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.