ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2025
Pulsed field ablation for ventricular arrhythmias with pentaspline catheter.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Ventricular pulsed field ablation from bench to bedside: preclinical and clinical evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis.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 · 2026Pooled it
- Pulsed Field Ablation for Ventricular Arrhythmias: A Systematic Review and Single-Arm Meta-Analysis.Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2026Pooled it
- Pulsed Field Ablation for the Treatment of Ventricular Arrhythmias Using a Focal, Contact-Force Sensing Catheter: A Single-Center Case Series and Review.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Catheter ablation using pulsed-field energy may penetrate deeper into scarred tissue than thermal energies; however, evidence regarding its role in treating ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) is limited. In this prospective study, we report our current experience on pulsed field ablation (PFA) with pentaspline catheter for the treatment of premature ventricular contractions (PVCs) originating from the right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) and scar-related ventricular tachycardias (VTs). Methods: Consecutive VA patients who underwent PFA with Farapulse system were enrolled. Seven patients underwent ablation for idiopathic RVOT PVCs, and five patients with structural heart disease underwent ablation for scar-related VTs. The recurrence of arrhythmias was assessed by 24-hour Holter electrocardiography monitoring or implantable cardioverter defibrillator interrogation. Results: Twelve patients were enrolled, age 51 ± 9 years, nine were men, four had previously failed radiofrequency ablation. Procedural and fluoroscopy times were 53 (41-105) minutes and 8 (4-20) minutes, respectively. The median number of PFA applications was 20 ± 13 in the VT group and 8 (7-8) in the PVC group. Acute procedural success was achieved in 92% (CI 62%-100%) of patients. During a mean follow-up of 100 (97-140) days, freedom from VT was 80% (CI 28%-99%), and a PVC burden <1% was achieved in 71% (CI 29%-96%) of patients. Conclusion: The ablation of idiopathic RVOT PVCs and scar-related VTs with the pentaspline PFA catheter is feasible, with good acute and mid-term efficacy observed in our cohort. Further research involving larger cohorts and longer follow-up periods is needed to analyze the safety and define the role of PFA in VAs.
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.