ArticleHeart rhythm O22025
Cardiac biomarker temporal dynamics after radiofrequency and pulsed field catheter ablation of 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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pulsed field ablation for the interventional treatment of atrial fibrillation: a scientific statement of the European Heart Rhythm Association of the European Society of Cardiology, the Heart Rhythm Society, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society, and the Canadian Heart Rhythm Society.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 · 2026Guideline
- Marked Troponin Elevation Mimicking Acute Coronary Syndrome After Pulsed-Field Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation.JACC. Case reports · 2026Article
- Beyond Troponin: Interpreting Myocardial Injury After Pulsed-Field Ablation.JACC. Case reports · 2026Article
- Physiological Tissue Response to Pulsed-Field Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: Insights from Biomarker Kinetics.Physiological research · 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There is a lack of data on the temporal dynamics of cardiac biomarkers after radiofrequency and pulsed field ablation (PFA) catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation. Objective: To evaluate the kinetics of release of several biomarkers following pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). Methods: All patients underwent baseline and regular post-procedural blood sampling (at 3, 24, and 48 hours) to assess major markers of myocardial injury (troponin I, creatinine kinase-MB, and myoglobin) and inflammatory (C-reactive protein [CRP]). The population was stratified into 3 groups according to the ablation system: radiofrequency (RF) ablation catheter (RF group), pentaspline Farapulse Results: A total of 186 patients were included: 79 RF (42.5%), 69 PFA-FAR (37.1%), and 38 PFA-VAR (20.4%). A greater extent of myocardial injury was noticed in the PFA groups vs RF, and cellular electroporation via pentaspline PFA resulted in a greater biomarker increase compared with loop-variable PFA. Kinetics of biomarkers of inflammation increase following PVI with both PFA technologies and RF. However, both PFA systems resulted in a faster CRP biomarker recovery compared with RF, while CRP continued to increase beyond 24 hours post-ablation only in the RF group. PVI was achieved in all patients (100%) using only PFA or RF. Conclusion: Cellular electroporation induced by pentaspline PFA was associated with a significantly greater elevation in these cardiac biomarkers compared with variable-loop PFA and RF. After an initial increase, both PFA systems were associated with a more rapid decline in CRP levels compared with RF.
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.