ArticleJournal of cardiovascular electrophysiology2026
Impact of Pulsed Field Ablation Dosing on Outcome After Pulmonary Vein Isolation Using a Pentaspline Ablation Catheter: A Prospective Comparison of 8 Versus 16 Applications.
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 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.
- Impact of Pulsed Field Ablation Dosing on Outcome After Pulmonary Vein Isolation Using a Pentaspline Ablation Catheter: A Prospective Comparison of 8 Versus 16 Applications.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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPulsed field ablation (PFA) is a novel, non-thermal ablation modality to achieve pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). For the pentaspline catheter, eight applications per pulmonary vein (PV) are considered standard, with four in basket configuration and four in flower configuration. The objective of the study is to investigate whether pentaspline PFA using 16 applications per PV is associated with an improved outcome compared with the standard procedure.
methodsThe prospective study included a total of 292 patients with AF. According to the number of applications per PV, patients were assigned to group PFA-8 (8 applications per PV; 4x basket configuration, 4x flower configuration; n = 130) or group PFA-16 (16 applications per PV; 6x basket, 10x flower; n = 162). The primary endpoint was freedom from atrial arrhythmia (AA), i.e. AF, atrial flutter, and atrial tachycardia, after a follow-up period of 1 year, as assessed by Holter monitoring after 3 and 12 months, respectively.
resultsFreedom from AA was significantly higher in group PFA-16 than in group PFA-8 (73.9% vs. 62.3%; p < 0.05). Subgroup analysis showed greater effectiveness in the PFA-16 group than in the PFA-8 group (66.1% vs. 45.3%; p < 0.05) in patients with persistent AF, while freedom from AA was similar in both groups in patients with paroxysmal AF (78.8% in PFA-16 vs. 75.7% in PFA-8; p = ns). Serious adverse events were observed in 8 (2.7%) patients, with no differences between the two groups.
conclusionPVI using 16 PFA applications per PV may improve clinical outcome in patients with persistent AF.
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.