ArticleCirculation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology2025
Safety, Efficacy, and Mid-Term Outcomes of Pulsed Field Ablation for Cavotricuspid Isthmus-Dependent Flutter: Real-World Data From a Major Health System Registry.
Article in Circulation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy and safety of pulsed field ablation for cavotricuspid isthmus-dependent atrial flutter: A meta-analysis based on real-world evidence.Heart rhythm O2 · 2026Article
- Efficacy, safety, and procedural outcomes of pulsed field ablation for cavotricuspid isthmus-dependent atrial flutter: a systematic review and single-arm meta-analysis.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2026Review
- Catheter Ablation for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: Rationale, Evidence, and Contemporary Strategies Beyond Pulmonary Veins.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) ablation is frequently performed either as a standalone procedure or in combination with pulmonary vein isolation. With the rapid adoption of pulsed field ablation for atrial fibrillation, it is essential to delineate the utility of this modality in treating CTI-dependent atrial flutter (AFL). This study aims to evaluate the procedural and clinical outcomes of CTI ablation using pulsed field energy.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients who underwent pulsed field ablation for CTI-dependent AFL between January 2024 and March 2025. The primary end points were acute procedural success, periprocedural complications, and CTI-dependent AFL recurrence during follow-up.
resultsA total of 132 patients underwent CTI nonthermal ablation. The median age was 69.5 years, and 27.3% were female. The Farawave catheter was used in 93.9% of cases, PulseSelect in 4.5%, and Sphere-9 in 1.5%. Acute block was achieved in 99.2% of patients, although 8 required adjunctive radiofrequency ablation to complete the line. Periprocedural complications included transient ST-segment elevation in 2 patients and transient conduction disturbances in 3. During a median follow-up of 114 days (n=131), 5 patients (3.8%) experienced recurrence of typical AFL. The 6-month typical AFL-free survival estimate was 93.6%.
conclusionsPulsed field ablation appears to be a feasible and effective strategy for CTI-dependent AFL. However, anatomic variability may limit its universal applicability with current catheter designs. Although acute procedural success is high, the long-term durability of the CTI block and its comparative efficacy versus conventional thermal ablation remain areas requiring further investigation.
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.