ReviewJournal of arrhythmia2025
Pulsed-Field Ablation Versus Radiofrequency Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of arrhythmia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pulsed field ablation for the interventional treatment of atrial fibrillation: a scientific statement of the European Heart Rhythm Association of the European Society of Cardiology, the Heart Rhythm Society, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society, and the Canadian Heart Rhythm Society.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 · 2026Guideline
- Unexpected Right Atrial Crossing of the Sphere-9 Catheter Despite Stable Left Atrial Sheath Position.Journal of arrhythmia · 2026Article
- Clinical Advantages and Pitfalls of Pulsed Field Ablation: How to Prevent ALH Syndrome.Journal of arrhythmia · 2026Review
- Clinical Outcomes of Pulsed Field Vs. Thermal Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Evidence.Journal of arrhythmia · 2026Article
- Real-World Adverse Events Associated With the Sphere-9 Dual-Energy Arrhythmia Ablation Catheter.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2026Article
- Pulsed Field Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Japan: Current Status and Future Perspectives.Circulation reports · 2026Review
- Left atrial appendage closure: Current status, unresolved issues, and future perspectives.Cardiovascular intervention and therapeutics · 2026Review
- Pulsed-field ablation versus cryoballoon ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation: A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2026Review
- One-stop pulmonary vein isolation and percutaneous LAA occlusion.Postepy w kardiologii interwencyjnej = Advances in interventional cardiology · 2026Article
- Impact of CPAP Therapy Adherence on Time to First Recurrence of Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Severe Obstructive Sleep Apnea.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Catheter Ablation as an Early Rhythm-control Strategy in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure.Arrhythmia & electrophysiology review · 2026Review
- Pulsed-Field Ablation Versus Radiofrequency Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of arrhythmia · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pulsed-field ablation (PFA) is a nonthermal alternative to radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, the role of PFA compared to RFA in patients with paroxysmal AF (PAF) remains unclear. Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of PFA and RFA in adult patients with PAF. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following the Cochrane methodology and reported in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched through February 2025 for studies comparing PFA and RFA in adults with PAF. The outcomes of interest included procedure time, 1-year success rate, and major complications. All the statistical analyses were performed via R version 4.5 with a random effects model. Results: One randomized controlled trial (RCT) and five observational studies comprising 3163 patients with PAF were included, of whom 972 (30.7%) underwent PFA. The follow-up time ranged from 12 to 30 months. PFA was associated with a significantly shorter procedure time (MD -39.15 min; 95% CI -58.19 to -20.11, Conclusion: In this meta-analysis, PFA was associated with a reduced operative time and an increased fluoroscopy time, with comparable 1-year efficacy and overall safety profiles. Trial Registration: PROSPERO number: CRD420251000165.
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.