ArticleJournal of cardiovascular electrophysiology2025
Comparison of Two Different Pulsed Field Ablation Systems: The Dual Pulse System Study.
Article 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 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.
- Pulsed field or cryoballoon ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation-insights from acute and chronic electroanatomic remapping in the randomized SINGLE-SHOT CHAMPION trial.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 · 2026Trial
- Effect of Pulsed Field Ablation System and Post-Ablation Mapping on Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Article
- Advent of Pulsed Field Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: State-of-the-Art Review.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Review
- Comparison of Two Different Pulsed Field Ablation Systems: The Dual Pulse System Study.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecently, multiple pulsed field ablation (PFA)-system were introduced for catheter ablation (CA) of atrial fibrillation (AF). However, data comparing procedural performance, the extent of low-voltage areas (LVA), and myocardial injury between different PFA-systems in a real-world setting remain scarce.
methodsConsecutive patients undergoing CA for AF were enrolled. PFA was performed using either a Pentaspline catheter-system (PCS) or a loop catheter-system (LCS). The extent of acute antral LVA was assessed using a 3D-electroanatomical mapping system. High-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) was measured the day after the procedure to assess myocardial injury.
resultsA total of 120 patients (median age 67 [59-73] years, 29% female) underwent de novo pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). The PCS-group included 90 patients, while the LCS-group included 30 patients. Acute PVI was achieved in all patients (100%). Procedural times were significantly shorter in the PCS compared to the LCS-group, including total procedure duration (57 [48-67] vs 66 [52-83] min, p = 0.016), left atrial dwell time (38 [32-48] vs 54 [38-65] min, p < 0.001), and ablation duration (17 [12-23] vs 24 [20-33] min, p < 0.001). Acute antral LVA and myocardial injury were significantly lower in the PCS compared to the LCS-group (6.6 [5.0-8.9] vs. 19.2 [16.8-25.4] cm², p < 0.001 and hs-cTnT of 1282 [892-1894] vs 1588 [1281-2110] ng/L, p = 0.029.
conclusionSignificant differences were observed between two commercially available PFA-systems. While PCS was associated with significantly shorter procedural time, LCS resulted in a greater extent of acute antral LVA and myocardial injury levels.
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.