ArticleJournal of cardiovascular electrophysiology2026
Acute Efficacy of Pulsed-Field Ablation of the Mitral Isthmus Using a Pentaspline Catheter and Two Different Ablation Settings.
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. It is linked to trial NCT06803238 (Procedural Mitral Isthmus Block Durability After Pulsed-Field Ablation in Patients with Non-Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation), which is not on this 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.
Procedural Mitral Isthmus Block Durability After Pulsed-Field Ablation in Patients with Non-Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Acute Efficacy of Pulsed-Field Ablation of the Mitral Isthmus Using a Pentaspline Catheter and Two Different Ablation Settings.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThere is limited data regarding the use of pulsed-field ablation (PFA) for mitral isthmus (MI) ablation in patients with non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). Our aim was to assess the acute efficacy of MI ablation using a pentaspline PFA catheter with two different ablation settings.
methodsPatients with AF undergoing ablation were consecutively enrolled. All patients underwent pulmonary vein isolation and left atrial posterior wall ablation. MI ablation was performed in up to 4 series (9 PFA applications each) in Cohort A, or in up to 3 series (20 PFA applications each) in Cohort B. Each series was followed by a 20-min observation period to verify the durability of the MI block. The primary endpoints were a first-pass MI block and a final MI block after all ablation series.
resultsBetween September 2024 and June 2025, 70 patients were enrolled: 30 in Cohort A and 40 in Cohort B. A first-pass MI block was achieved in 10 (33.3%) patients in Cohort A and 28 (70%) patients in Cohort B (p = 0.003). A final MI block was present in 27 (90%) and 35 (87.5%) patients in Cohort A and B, respectively (p = 1.00). The median reconduction time was 6 min (IQR 2.8-9.4) in Cohort A and 5 min (IQR 2.6-8.7) in Cohort B. No major complications occurred.
conclusionUsing series of 20 PFA applications increased the success rate of a first-pass MI block to 70%. An observation period is recommended to verify the durability of MI block in PFA. CLINICAL
trial registrationNCT06803238.
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.