ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2025
Thermal and Non-Thermal Energies for Atrial Fibrillation Ablation.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 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 versus thermal ablation in the management of atrial fibrillation: A narrative review.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2026Review
- Atrial Fibrillation Risk Management and Emerging Therapies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence-guided Extra-pulmonary Vein Repeat Ablation with the Pentaspline Pulsed Field Ablation Catheter.The Journal of innovations in cardiac rhythm management · 2026Article
- Current and Emerging Energy Sources for Atrial Fibrillation Ablation: A Comparative Analysis of Clinical Efficacy, Safety, and Procedural Implementation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Epicardial adipose tissue radiomic features from pre-procedural CT to predict atrial fibrillation recurrence after catheter ablation for pulmonary vein isolation.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The cornerstone of ablative therapy for atrial fibrillation (AF) is pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). Whether PVI should be added with additional lesions in persistent atrial fibrillation (PerAF) or for any post-ablative recurrent AF is a matter of debate. Whatever the ablative strategy, it must determine the choice of energy source to achieve the most durable lesion sets with the least likelihood of complications. Radiofrequency (RF) is the most studied thermal ablation technique. It can be combined with high-density electroanatomic mapping and can be used for both pulmonary and extrapulmonary atrial ablation. Cryoenergy is at least as effective as radiofrequency for PVI; it is rapid, relatively safe, and has a steep learning curve. Therefore, it has been proposed as a first-line approach for PVI-only procedures. More recently, a non-thermal technique based on the application of pulsed direct current (Pulsed Field Ablation-PFA) has been introduced. PFA causes cell death by opening cell membrane pores (electroporation) without a significant increase in tissue temperature. It is fast and does not alter the extracellular matrix as thermal techniques do, although it ends up causing long-lasting, transmural lesions. Most importantly, it is relatively selective on cardiac myocytes and therefore potentially safer than thermal techniques. Some PFA systems can be combined with electroanatomic mapping systems. However, as of now, it appears that these ablation technologies should be considered complementary rather than alternative for a number of practical and theoretical reasons.
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.