SynthesisClinical cardiology2025
Meta-Analysis of Thermal Versus Pulse Field Ablation for Pulmonary Vein Isolation Durability in Atrial Fibrillation: Insights From Repeat Ablation.
Synthesis in Clinical cardiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Two Pulsed Field Ablation Systems for Atrial Fibrillation: One-Year Outcomes From a Multicenter Registry.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2026Article
- Molecular Mechanisms of Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence After Successful Catheter Ablation.Cells · 2025Review
- Electrical reconnection after pulsed field ablation with a circular over-the-wire catheter in atrial fibrillation.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2025Article
- Targeting the Substrate: Mechanism-Based Ablation Strategies for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposePulsed field ablation (PFA) represents an innovative technique for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), exhibiting promising efficacy and safety in initial clinical studies. However, the long-term durability of PVI and reconnection patterns following PFA are not as well-characterized compared to those associated with thermal energy sources such as cryoballoon ablation (CBA) or radiofrequency ablation (RFA). The objective of this study is to compare the durability of lesions resulting from repeat ablation after index PVI using PFA versus thermal ablation (TA).
methodsWe conducted a comprehensive search of multiple databases to identify relevant studies published before January 2025. PVI durability was assessed on a per patient and per vein level.
resultsThis study included 14 trials involving a total of 7,367 patients. PFA demonstrated a trend toward reduced rates of repeat ablation in comparison to TA (OR 0.77; 95% CI, 0.59-1.00). Durability of PVI per patient (OR 1.42; 95% CI, 0.92-2.19) or per vein (OR 1.42; 95% CI, 0.92-2.19) were similar after PFA and TA. The most common site of reconnection was the right inferior PV for both PFA and TA (39.7% and 38.1%, respectively). Subgroup analyses demonstrated that PVI durability per vein was significantly higher with PFA compared to RFA (OR 1.32; 95% CI, 1.03-1.70).
conclusionAt the time of repeat ablation, PFA exhibited a trend toward a reduced incidence of repeat procedures compared to CBA or RFA. PFA is comparable to CBA in achieving durable isolation of all veins but demonstrates superiority over RFA.
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.