ReviewHealth science reports2025
Pulsed Field Ablation: A Systematic Review.
Review in Health science reports, 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.
- Pulsed field ablation and the risk of hemolysis-driven acute kidney injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2026Pooled it
- How to Use a Variable Loop Circular Catheter to Perform Zero Fluoro Pulmonary Vein Isolation With Pulsed Field Ablation.Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2026Review
- Single-Center Real World Experience with the VARIPULSE Platform for Pulsed Field Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation, Atrial Flutter, and Redo Procedures.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most prevalent cardiac arrhythmia, leading to significant health and economic burdens. Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is a key treatment strategy, with pulsed field ablation (PFA) emerging as a promising method due to its specificity and reduced collateral damage compared to traditional thermal ablation techniques like radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and cryoablation (CB). Materials and Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed across multiple databases, including PubMed, Embase, and MEDLINE via Ovid, Scopus, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.Gov. Studies reporting on the efficacy and safety of PFA in AF treatment were selected and analyzed. Quality assessment of the studies was conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Result: Of the 440 articles initially identified, 28 met the inclusion criteria. PVI using PFA demonstrated high success rates, with most studies reporting over 90% success. Durability stands around 65% after 1 year. Mortality was 0.06%-0.32%, while stroke rate was 0.3%-4.4%. There were no reported oesophageal injuries or pulmonary vein stenosis due to the highly selective electroporation-induced cell death caused by PFA rather than coagulative necrosis, sparing nearby structures. There is a short learning curve for PFA. Conclusion: PFA is a highly effective and safe ablation method. It offers an alternative to conventional thermal ablation strategies in the treatment of AF, showing promise to reduce the risk of collateral damage and complications associated with thermal ablation techniques. However, further research is needed to understand its long-term efficacy and safety fully and to standardize procedural protocols for wider clinical application.
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.