ArticleJournal of health economics and outcomes research2025
Early Assessment of the Environmental Impact of Pentaspline Pulsed Field Ablation and Cryoablation in the Treatment of Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation.
Article in Journal of health economics and outcomes research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Environmental Impact of Pentaspline Pulsed Field Ablation-Global Warming or Arctic Front?Journal of health economics and outcomes 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) affects 2% to 4.5% of the population. Catheter ablation, a key strategy for paroxysmal AF management, can be achieved through radiofrequency (RFA), cryoablation (CBA), or pulsed field ablation (PFA). While clinical outcomes are well studied, their environmental impact remains underexplored. Objectives: This study modeled the environmental impact of CBA and PFA ablation techniques in Europe, aiming to provide evidence to guide sustainable practices in AF treatment. Methods: An early environmental analysis compared pentaspline PFA (Farapulse system, Boston Scientific) with CBA using a decision-analytic model. The model simulated the patient care pathway from a hospital perspective over a 1-year time horizon, considering index and redo procedures, and complications. The environmental impact, linked to resource use, was measured in kilograms of CO Results: The environmental analysis showed that PFA resulted in total emissions of 13 899 kg CO Discussion: PFA showed potential for reducing emissions by approximately 25 kg CO Conclusions: PFA was expected to reduce emissions compared with CBA in AF patients. Conscious medical device choices can foster more sustainable hospital practices. A full life-cycle analysis of catheters is needed to validate these findings.
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.