ArticleHeart rhythm O22025
Differential inflammatory and myocardial biomarker response after pulsed field ablation for atrial fibrillation using balloon-in-basket vs pentaspline catheters.
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.
- Physiological Tissue Response to Pulsed-Field Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: Insights from Biomarker Kinetics.Physiological research · 2026Article
- Pulmonary vein isolation using a novel balloon-in-basket pulsed field ablation system: The Lübeck how-to protocol.Heart rhythm O2 · 2026Article
- Differential biomarker responses of hemolysis, inflammation, and myocardial injury after pulsed-field pulmonary vein isolation: balloon-in-basket vs. circular catheter systems.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a nonthermal technique for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in atrial fibrillation, offering lesion selectivity with minimal collateral damage. Despite its nonthermal nature, systemic inflammatory and myocardial responses may occur. Catheter design could modulate these effects. Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare inflammatory and myocardial biomarker responses after PFA using balloon-in-basket vs pentaspline catheter systems. Methods: This prospective, nonrandomized, single-center study involved venous blood sampling before and the morning after PFA-based PVI using either catheter type. Biomarkers analyzed included leukocytes, C-reactive protein (CRP), platelets, troponin T, creatine kinase (CK), CK-MB, and myoglobin. Results: Eighty patients were included (balloon-in-basket: n = 40; pentaspline: n = 40). Baseline characteristics were comparable. All patients achieved acute and first-pass PVI. The balloon-in-basket group required fewer PFA applications (16 vs 32; Conclusion: Balloon-in-basket and pentaspline PFA catheters induce distinct inflammatory and myocardial biomarker profiles after PVI. The observed differences in leukocyte, CRP, and platelet responses highlight design-specific biological effects. These findings may support informed catheter selection and help guide postprocedural monitoring strategies.
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.