ArticleInternational journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature2025
Protocol for a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial comparing pulsed field ablation vs. cryoballoon ablation in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (PEACE trial).
Article in International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07064616 (Pulsed Field Ablation vs. Cryoballoon Ablation in Patients With Persistent Atrial Fibrillation), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
Pulsed Field Ablation vs. Cryoballoon Ablation in Patients With Persistent Atrial Fibrillation
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recent highlights from theInternational journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2026Article
- Pulsed field ablation vs. medical therapy for atrial fibrillation: a propensity score-matched comparison with the JoFib registry.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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Catheter ablation has become a standard treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF). However, evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of pulsed field ablation (PFA) in patients with persistent AF (PeAF) remains limited. The PEACE trial aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PFA compared to cryoballoon ablation (CBA) in PeAF. Methods: This prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial (NCT07064616, UMIN000057896) will enroll 300 patients with PeAF, randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo either PFA using the PulseSelect™ or cryoballoon ablation (CBA) using the Arctic Front Advance™. The primary efficacy endpoint is atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence within 12 months. The primary safety endpoint is procedure-related complications within 30 days. Secondary outcomes include early recurrence, changes in LA diameter, natriuretic peptide levels, and patient-reported symptoms. Expected results: We hypothesize that PFA will be non-inferior to CBA in terms of efficacy and safety. Conclusions: The PEACE trial will provide essential data regarding the efficacy and safety of PFA compared to CBA in patients with PeAF, potentially informing future clinical practice.
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.