ArticleJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2025
Redo ablation procedures to treat recurrent atrial arrhythmias via a pentaspline pulsed field ablation catheter: a prospective, multicenter experience.
Article 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pulsed Field Ablation with the Pentaspline Catheter vs Radiofrequency Ablation for Recurrent Atrial Fibrillation.CJC open · 2026Article
- Catheter Ablation for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: Rationale, Evidence, and Contemporary Strategies Beyond Pulmonary Veins.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
29 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients undergoing atrial fibrillation (AF) catheter ablation may require redo procedures involving pulmonary vein (PV) re-isolation and/or ablation of extra-PV sites. Pulsed field ablation (PFA) offers a highly selective energy source for cardiac tissue, with the potential to reduce collateral damage to adjacent structures. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of redo ablation using a pentaspline PFA system.
methodsPatients undergoing redo procedures with a pentaspline PFA system at three international centers were enrolled. A workflow was established based on rhythm at presentation: sinus rhythm (Group 1), atrial flutter/atrial tachycardia (Group 2), or AF (Group 3). Propensity score matching was used for comparison between PFA- and RF-based redo ablations.
resultsA total of 117 patients were included (Group 1: 64, Group 2: 18, Group 3: 35). PV re-isolation was required in 71.9% and 72.2% of Group 1 and 2 patients, respectively. PFA terminated all cases of non-cavotricuspid isthmus dependent flutter and 45.7% of cases of AF. One major complication (0.9%; frontal cerebral hematoma) was documented. Freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmias at 12 months was 78.3% (95% CI 69.6-84.8%) without statistically significant differences among groups (Group 1: 85.7%; Group 2: 77%; Group 3: 65.5%; p = 0.053). PFA led to similar arrhythmia freedom compared to RF, but with significantly shorter procedural and dwelling times.
conclusionThe adoption of a pentaspline PFA system for repeat ablation procedures was feasible, safe, and effective at 1-year follow-up. No clinical differences were observed between PFA and RF; however, redo PFA cases were significantly shorter.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40038209What 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.