SynthesisJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2025
Comparing pulsed field ablation with very high-power and high-power short-duration radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Safety and efficacy of the pulsed field ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Pooled it
- High-power, very-high-power, and low-power radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation: A Bayesian network meta-analysis.Heart rhythm O2 · 2026Article
- Atrial Fibrillation Ablation: Are We Still Looking for the Best Shot?Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCatheter ablation is a key treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF), with high-power, very high-power short-duration and pulsed field ablation (PFA) being efficient options. However, direct comparisons between these techniques are lacking.
objectiveWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis, which included predominantly observational studies (four retrospective and one prospective study), to compare PFA and High-power short-duration (HPSD) and very high-power short-duration (vHPSD) radiofrequency (RF) ablation in patients with AF.
methodsWe searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Central. Outcomes of interest included: Arrhythmia-free survival (AF, atrial flutter, and atrial tachycardia recurrences 30 s during follow-up after a 1-month blanking period), procedure time, fluoroscopy time, fluoroscopy dose, complications overall. Statistical analysis was performed using the R program (version 4.3.2). Heterogeneity was assessed with I
resultsOur meta-analysis included 1,255 patients from 5 studies, with a mean age ranging from 63 to 68 years. Among them, 554 (45.2%) underwent pulsed field ablation (PFA) and 701 (55.8%) received high/very high potential short-duration ablation. PFA improved arrhythmia-free survival (RR 1.05; 95% CI 1.002-1.120; P = 0.004; I
conclusionIn this meta-analysis, PFA was associated with improved arrhythmia-free survival and reduced procedure time, although it resulted in increased fluoroscopy time. PFA and high/very high power short-duration ablation yielded similar outcomes regarding overall complications, cardiac tamponade, and stroke/TIA incidence. Both techniques demonstrated comparable efficacy in treating atrial fibrillation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39738811What 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.