ArticleHeart rhythm O22025
Pulsed-field ablation versus radiofrequency ablation in patients undergoing repeat catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
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.
- Circulating miR-10b-5p as a candidate biomarker of atrial fibrillation recurrence after catheter ablation: a two-phase translational study.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 · 2026Article
- Pulsed-field vs radiofrequency ablation for posterior wall isolation in persistent atrial fibrillation: A propensity-matched outcome analysis.Heart rhythm O2 · 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: Pulsed-field ablation (PFA) is noninferior compared with thermal energy sources such as radiofrequency ablation (RFA) or cryoballoon ablation for de novo pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). However, its potential value for repeat catheter ablation (CA) after unsuccessful thermal PVI has not been assessed. Objective: This study aimed to compare the procedural characteristics, safety, and efficacy between PFA and RFA in patients undergoing repeat CA after previous thermal PVI. Methods: Patients with recurrent atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing repeat CA at a tertiary referral center were prospectively enrolled. All redo procedures were guided by a 3-dimensional electroanatomic mapping system and performed using either PFA or RFA. Results: A total of 185 patients underwent repeat CA for AF (median age 68 years [60-74], 31% female, 53% paroxysmal AF, and 47% persistent AF). PFA was used in 71 patients (38%), whereas RFA was used in 114 patients (62%). The median procedure time was similar between the PFA and RFA groups (61 minutes [50-71] vs 56 minutes [45-82] Conclusion: In patients undergoing repeat CA after thermal PVI, PFA resulted in similar procedural characteristics, safety, and arrythmia-free survival compared with RFA.
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.