ArticleHeart rhythm O22025
Pulsed field ablation vs high-power short duration/very high-power short duration pulmonary vein isolation-Systematic review and meta-analysis with Kaplan-Meier reconstructed individual patient data.
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, 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 Versus High-Power Short-Duration Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation-A Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Review
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
Background: High-power/very high-power short-duration (HPSD/VHPSD) pulmonary vein isolation has greater efficacy than does conventional pulmonary vein isolation, while pulsed field ablation (PFA) is associated with a significantly shorter procedural duration with comparable efficacy. Objective: This meta-analysis compared the efficacy, procedural duration, and safety of PFA vs HPSD/VHPSD ablation. Methods: Atrial tachyarrhythmia (ATa) recurrence was defined as any episode of atrial fibrillation, flutter, or tachycardia lasting >30 seconds, detected by Holter monitoring or electrocardiography, after a 3-month blanking period. The intervention group received PFA and the control group received HPSD/VHPSD ablation. Results: Eight studies (mostly retrospective observational) comprising 1411 patients were analyzed. ATa recurrence occurred less frequently in the PFA group than in the HPSD/VHPSD ablation group (15% in PFA vs 25% in HPSD/VHPSD ablation; odds ratio 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40-0.81; Conclusion: PFA was potentially associated with a comparable or reduced ATa recurrence rate and a shorter procedural duration compared with HPSD/VHPSD ablation while maintaining similar complication rates. Further randomized controlled trials are warranted to validate these findings. PROSPERO registration number: CRD420251034443.
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.