ArticleJournal of cardiovascular electrophysiology2026
Inflammatory and Myocardial Biomarker Response Following Pulmonary Vein Isolation: Cryoballoon Versus Balloon-in-Basket Pulsed Field Ablation.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pulmonary vein isolation using a novel balloon-in-basket pulsed field ablation system: The Lübeck how-to protocol.Heart rhythm O2 · 2026Article
- Inflammatory and Myocardial Biomarker Response Following Pulmonary Vein Isolation: Cryoballoon Versus Balloon-in-Basket Pulsed Field Ablation.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2026Article
- Does sex shape the biological footprint of balloon-in-basket pulsed field ablation-guided pulmonary vein isolation? A biomarker analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Biomarker response to balloon-in-basket pulsed field ablation: does posterior wall isolation matter?Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCryoballoon ablation (CB) is a well-established thermal technique for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), while balloon-in-basket pulsed field ablation (BiB-PFA) represents a novel non-thermal alternative. Both single-shot systems may trigger systemic inflammation and myocardial injury, yet direct comparisons are lacking. This study aimed to compare inflammatory and myocardial biomarker responses following first-time PVI using CB or BiB-PFA.
methodsIn this prospective, single-center study, 100 patients undergoing PVI for symptomatic paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) were enrolled (CB: n = 50; BiB-PFA: n = 50). Venous blood samples were collected before and on the morning after ablation to assess leukocytes, C-reactive protein (CRP), platelets, troponin T, creatine kinase (CK), myoglobin, creatinine, and estimated glomerular filtration rate. Baseline characteristics, procedural data, and acute success were analyzed.
resultsPatients in the CB group were older (74 vs. 65 years; p = 0.01) and had higher CHA₂DS₂-VAcore (3.0 vs. 2.0; p = 0.009). Acute PVI was achieved in all cases CB was associated with greater increases in leukocytes (Δ2.5 vs. 1.1 × 10⁹/L; p = 0.05) and CRP (Δ5.8 vs. 3.4 mg/L; p = 0.02), whereas BiB-PFA showed higher rises in CK (Δ217 vs. 103 U/L; p = 0.01) and troponin T (Δ1129 vs. 614.5 ng/L; p = 0.01). No significant correlation was found between energy delivery and biomarker changes.
conclusionCB and BiB-PFA elicit distinct systemic responses. CB provoked stronger inflammatory activation, while BiB-PFA caused greater myocardial biomarker release, suggesting energy- and device-specific effects.
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.