ReviewReviews in cardiovascular medicine2025
Pulse Field Ablation: An Update on Energy-Specific Adverse Events.
Review in Reviews in cardiovascular medicine, 2025. 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.
- Efficacy and safety of pulsed field ablation and very high-power short-duration ablation for atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Pulsed field ablation of epicardial premature ventricular contractions via a subxiphoid percutaneous approach.HeartRhythm case reports · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pulsed field ablation (PFA) represents a paradigm shift in cardiac ablation technology. Indeed, PFA, a non-thermal technique, achieves homogeneous tissue effects by delivering ultrashort, high-frequency electric pulses. Moreover, PFA has emerged as a prominent ablation strategy in electrophysiology laboratories worldwide. While current clinical evidence demonstrated promising outcomes and expanded applications for existing PFA platforms, energy-specific difficulties complicated the definition of safety boundaries, particularly in patients with clinical complications. Furthermore, substantial heterogeneity among commercial PFA systems impeded procedural standardization. Therefore, this review aimed to synthesize contemporary perspectives on mitigating these energy-specific adverse events, with emphasis on modifiable perioperative factors. The evidence of safety across commercially available PFA systems with divergent catheter design philosophies was concurrently evaluated to examine how design strategies influence procedural safety profiles.
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.