ArticleArquivos brasileiros de cardiologia2025
Atrial Fibrillation Catheter Ablation: Electroporation Against High-Power Short Duration Radiofrequency.
Article in Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of pulsed field ablation and very high-power short-duration ablation for atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Pulsed Field Ablation Versus Very High-Power Short-Duration Radiofrequency Ablation in Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2025Pooled it
- A network meta-analysis of comparative effectiveness and safety of pulsed field, radiofrequency, and cryoballoon ablation for atrial fibrillation.Heart rhythm O2 · 2026Article
- Article
- High-Power Short Duration or Pulsed Field Ablation: What is the Best Choice for AF Ablation?Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2025Article
- 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is crucial in treating symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF). New ablation technologies, such as pulse-field ablation (PFA) and high-power short-duration (HPSD) have emerged in the electrophysiology lab. However, no study has compared the outcomes of these approaches.
objectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of PFA and HPSD in AF symptomatic patients.
methodsSingle-centre, retrospective study of consecutive patients undergoing PVI with PFA or HPSD between May and December 2022. Demographic data, procedural data, and AF recurrence beyond the blanking period, were analysed. Comparative analysis between both techniques was performed. A P-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsA total 101 patients were included (61±11 years, 75% men); 56% of patients had paroxysmal AF and 19% underwent a redo ablation. Forty-five percent of patients underwent HPSD ablation and 55% PFA. Comparing HPSD and PFA, HPSD had a lower fluoroscopy time (5min [IQR 3-7min]vs 13min [IQR 10-16min], p<0.001), but higher procedure time (97min [IQR 75-142]vs 88min [IQR 66-111], p=0.13). Posterior wall isolation (PWI) was performed in 5 (11%) HPSD vs 20 (36%) PFA patients (p=0.004). There was only one case of major complication, a patient with cardiac tamponade following PFA, who was treated with pericardiocentesis. Over 384 (IQR 341 -545) days of follow-up, 76 patients (75%) were in sinus rhythm, while 25% of patients had AF recurrence: 10 PFA patients and 15 HPSD patients (p=0.06).
conclusionsBoth PFA and HPSD were found to be feasible and safe procedures. PFA resulted in shorter procedure times, and lower AF recurrence rates, mainly when PWI was performed. Although analysis in a real-world scenario is still scarce, both techniques seem to be efficient, with a low AF recurrence rate.
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.