ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2025
Balloon vs. balloon-comparison of hemolysis and renal markers after cryoballoon vs. ballon-in-basket pulsed field pulmonary vein isolation.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early Hemolysis, Myolysis and Renal Stress Following Pentaspline Pulsed Field Versus Radiofrequency Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation.European journal of clinical investigation · 2026Observational
- "Awake but elsewhere": impact of augmented reality glasses on conscious sedation in balloon-in-basket pulsed field ablation.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2026Article
- Safety and performance of the novel balloon-in-basket pulsed field ablation system: initial 100-patient experience at a high-volume electrophysiology center.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2026Article
- Pulmonary vein isolation using a novel balloon-in-basket pulsed field ablation system: The Lübeck how-to protocol.Heart rhythm O2 · 2026Article
- Differential biomarker responses of hemolysis, inflammation, and myocardial injury after pulsed-field pulmonary vein isolation: balloon-in-basket vs. circular catheter systems.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Biomarker response to balloon-in-basket pulsed field ablation: does posterior wall isolation matter?Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aims: Single-shot ablation systems are widely used for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in atrial fibrillation (AF). Cryoballoon ablation (CBA) ablation is a well-established thermal method, while balloon-in-basket pulsed field ablation (BiB-PFA) represents a novel non-thermal modality. Both may elicit systemic effects, including hemolysis and renal stress. This study aimed to compare biomarker changes indicative of hemolysis and renal function following CBA vs. BiB-PFA. Methods: In this prospective, non-randomized, single-center study, patients undergoing first-time PVI with either CBA or BiB-PFA were enrolled. Venous blood samples were collected before PVI and at day 1 post procedure. Laboratory analyses included lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), haptoglobin, hemoglobin, myoglobin, total bilirubin, creatinine, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). Results: A total of 100 patients were included (CBA: Conclusion: While CBA was associated with more pronounced hematologic changes, kidney function did not differ between groups. These findings emphasize the systemic effects of catheter design and energy modality while supporting the renal safety of both techniques.
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.