ArticleHeart rhythm O22025
Real-world comparison of variable vs fixed-loop circular pulsed field ablation catheters: Acute outcomes including non-pulmonary vein ablation.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Feasibility and acute results of a circular over-the-wire pulse field ablation catheter for pulmonary vein isolation and linear ablation lesions.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2026Article
- Methodological considerations for nonconcurrent comparisons of pulsed field ablation catheter platforms.Heart rhythm O2 · 2026Article
- Author's reply to "Methodological considerations for nonconcurrent comparisons of pulsed field ablation catheter platforms".Heart rhythm O2 · 2026Article
- Cavotricuspid isthmus ablation with a focal dual-energy catheter: First commercial experience.Heart rhythm O2 · 2026Article
- Single-Center Real World Experience with the VARIPULSE Platform for Pulsed Field Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation, Atrial Flutter, and Redo Procedures.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is an emerging non-thermal approach for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in atrial fibrillation (AF). Comparative real-world data between variable-loop circular catheter (VLCC; VARIPULSE™, Biosense Webster, Inc) and fixed-loop circular catheter (FLCC; PulseSelect™, Medtronic) catheters, including non-PVI ablation, are limited. Objective: To compare acute efficacy, procedural characteristics, and safety of PVI, and adjunctive ablations performed with VLCC vs FLCC during clinical implementation. Methods: Overall, 90 consecutive patients were studied (first 45 VLCC and 45 FLCC cases). FLCC procedures used fluoroscopic guidance; VLCC was integrated with 3-dimensional mapping, reflecting standard real-world use of each catheter. Additional ablations were performed at the operator's discretion. Acute outcomes and complications were analyzed. Results: Acute PVI success was 100% in both groups. Additional ablations (cavotricuspid isthmus [CTI], roof lines, posterior wall, superior vena cava [SVC]) were performed in 17 (VLCC) and 15 (FLCC) patients, achieving bidirectional block without Radiofrequency touch-ups. In PVI-only cases, FLCC was associated with shorter median procedure time (67.2 vs 76 min, Conclusion: This first clinical comparison demonstrated high acute efficacy and favorable safety profiles, with notable procedural differences reflecting their distinct workflows of 2 circular PFA catheter systems for AF ablation. Likewise, this includes the first reported successful CTI, SVC and mitral isthmus ablation using VLCC reflecting its versatility for ablation. Further research is warranted to assess long-term outcomes and lesion durability.
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.