ArticleJACC. Asia2025
Effectiveness and Safety of Pulsed Field Ablation in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.
Article in JACC. Asia, 2025. 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 for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter in a patient with dextrocardia and prior secundum atrial septal defect repair: a case report.European heart journal. Case reports · 2026Article
- Suspected Atrioesophageal Fistula After Atrial Fibrillation Ablation: A Conservative Approach.JACC. Case reports · 2026Article
- Perioperative parameters and myocardial necrosis: a real-world comparison of Farapulse and Varipulse.Cardiology journal · 2026Article
- Pulsed-Field Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: Meta-Analysis Confirms Expected Initial Outcomes.JACC. Asia · 2025Article
- Atrial Fibrillation in Asia and Globally: "Easy as ABC," "It's an SOS," or "Handle With CARE".JACC. Asia · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: As a competitive nonthermal energy technique used in atrial fibrillation (AF), the effectiveness and safety of pulsed field ablation (PFA) has remained uncertain. Objectives: The authors meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effectiveness and safety of PFA in treating AF patients and compare its outcomes with conventional thermal ablation. Methods: The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched until January 2024 for relevant studies investigating the use of PFA for AF. A fixed-effects model was used for pooled analysis if the I Results: A total of 46 studies were included in this analysis. The single-arm meta-analysis of 40 studies showed an acute pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) rate of 99.79% per pulmonary vein (PV) and 99.47% per patient, with atrial arrhythmia recurrence rates of 12.36%, 12.42%, and 23.28% at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. The safety outcomes incidence was low. In the comparison of 21 studies between PFA and thermal ablation, PFA demonstrated comparable acute PVI rates but a higher first-pass isolation rate. PFA was associated with a lower incidence of atrial arrhythmia recurrence after 3 months and phrenic nerve paralysis or injury, but a higher risk of cardiac perforation or tamponade. Procedure time was shorter with PFA. Conclusions: PFA showed noninferiority to thermal ablation in acute PVI and superiority in first-pass isolation, atrial arrhythmia recurrence, phrenic nerve paralysis or injury, and procedure time. However, PFA treatment exhibited a higher risk of cardiac perforation or tamponade.
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.