Observational studyJournal of cardiovascular electrophysiology2025
Direct Comparison of Two Commercially Available Pulsed Field Ablation Systems for Atrial Fibrillation; Procedure Characteristics and Acute Outcomes.
Observational study in Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology, 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.
- Evaluation of Hemolysis Risk, Renal Function, and Safety Among Two Pulsed Field Ablation Systems: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of arrhythmia · 2026Review
- PulseSelect vs FARAPULSE pulsed field ablation: Comparative analysis of myocardial, neural-injury and hemolysis biomarkers and short-term outcomes.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2026Article
- Comparison of Two Pulsed Field Ablation Systems for Atrial Fibrillation: One-Year Outcomes From a Multicenter Registry.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2026Article
- Effect of Pulsed Field Ablation System and Post-Ablation Mapping on Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Article
- A randomized controlled trial of two pulsed field ablation systems for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: the DUAL-PULSE trial rationale and design.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are few comparative studies on the everyday clinical outcomes of commercially available pulsed field ablation (PFA) systems for atrial fibrillation (AF).
objectiveThis study evaluates the acute efficacy and safety outcomes of the FARAPULSE™ (pentaspline catheter) and PulseSelect™ (circular catheter) system.
methodsInternational, multicenter, registry on patients with paroxysmal or persistent AF, undergoing a first ablation using either PFA system between January 29th, 2024 and September 1st, 2024. Primary endpoints were electrical isolation of ablation targets, procedural characteristics and freedom from major adverse events within 30 days postprocedure.
resultsA total of 402 patients were enrolled at the six participating centers, of whom 56.5% were treated with the pentaspline ablation-catheter. Acute procedural efficacy was 100% for both groups. Use of the pentaspline ablation-catheter was associated with significantly shorter procedural times (36.0 min [IQR 31.0; 44.0] vs. 49.0 min [IQR 41.5;76.0]) compared to the circular ablation-catheter (p < 0.001). Major adverse events were scarce and not different between cohorts. Two patients (0.5%) experienced a stroke and one patient (0.2%) had a serious vascular access site complication. One patient had a transient ischemic attack (0.2%). Minor vascular access site complications were more common in the pentaspline catheter group (11.9% vs. 1.1%, p < 0.001).
conclusionsThis study showed excellent acute efficacy and safety for both PFA-systems. Our findings reveal shorter procedural times with the pentaspline catheter, less minor access site complications with the circular catheter, and several procedural differences between the ablation systems, often driven by operator choice.
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.