ArticleJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2026
Conventional pulsed-field ablation versus pulsed-field ablation with non-integrated three-dimensional mapping for paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation ablation.
Article in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Safety and efficacy of the pulsed field ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2026Pooled it
- Effect of Pulsed Field Ablation System and Post-Ablation Mapping on Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence.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
26 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is limited evidence on efficiency, effectiveness, and safety outcomes in the context of pulsed-field ablation (PFA) of atrial fibrillation (AF) when a 3D mapping system is used. PURPOSE: To assess the impact of non-integrated 3D mapping systems in PFA for the treatment of AF.
methodsConsecutive patients undergoing PFA (FARAPULSE system) at 17 centers were included. Procedures were stratified according to the use of 3D mapping system (MAP vs standard; STD).
resultsA total of 1804 patients were included, 484 (26.8%) with a 3D mapping system. MAP procedures had longer skin-to-skin (90 [75-120] min vs. 60 [50-70] min, p < 0.0001), cath lab utilization (120 [100-165] min vs. 70 [60-94] min, p < 0.0001), and fluoroscopy time (22 [17-28] min vs. 15 [11-21] min, p < 0.0001). The use of 3D mapping was not associated with a better long-term clinical outcome in the overall population (freedom from AF/atrial tachycardia (AT) of 82.5% in MAP procedures vs. 77.4% in STD procedures, HR = 0.737, 95% CI 0.53-1.03, p = 0.0746) as well as in PVI-only paroxysmal AF (86.5% vs. 80.3%, 0.67, 0.38-1.19, p = 0.172), in PVI plus additional lesion sets paroxysmal AF (72.7% vs. 77.8%, 1.08, 0.44-2.65, p = 0.869), or in PVI only persistent AF (76.0% vs. 68.0%, 0.86, 0.36-2.04, p = 0.727). A significantly higher arrhythmia recurrence-free rate was noticed in patients with persistent AF undergoing additional lesion set ablation (83.7% vs 70.3%, 0.45, 0.24 to 0.86, p = 0.016). Three major complications (0.2%) occurred, all in the STD group.
conclusionThe use of a non-integrated 3D mapping system for PFA of AF did not significantly affect long-term success rates in paroxysmal AF or in patients undergoing PVI-only procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41042293What 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.