Trial reportEuropean heart journal2026
Pulsed field vs radiofrequency ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: the BEAT PAROX-AF trial.
Trial report in European heart journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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.
Ground-Breaking Electroporation-based Intervention for PAROXysmal Atrial Fibrillation Treatment (BEAT PAROX-AF)
PULSed Field Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation Using a Balloon for Early Intervention - Study - The "PULSE - Study"
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pulsed field ablation for the interventional treatment of atrial fibrillation: a scientific statement of the European Heart Rhythm Association of the European Society of Cardiology, the Heart Rhythm Society, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society, and the Canadian Heart Rhythm Society.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2026Guideline
- Pulsed field ablation versus conventional thermal ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: 4-year outcomes in the ADVENT-LTO study.Nature medicine · 2026Trial
- Association Between the Change in Interleukin-6 Levels and Early Recurrence of Atrial Fibrillation: A Comparison of Pulsed Field Ablation and Radiofrequency Ablation.Journal of arrhythmia · 2026Article
- Efficacy and safety of pulsed-field ablation with the pentaspline catheter versus thermal ablation in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2026Article
- Comparison of Pentaspline Pulsed Field Ablation Catheter Mapping Modes to Assess Pulmonary Vein Isolation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2026Article
- Phenotype-Guided Management of Atrial Fibrillation in Heart Failure: From Rate Control to Catheter Ablation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Clinical Outcomes of Pulsed Field Vs. Thermal Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Evidence.Journal of arrhythmia · 2026Article
- Procedural Management of Atrial Fibrillation in Older Patients.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Comparative Efficacy of Continuous Versus Patch ECG Monitoring in Detecting Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence Post Catheter Ablation: Insights From the REAL-AF Registry.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2026Observational
- Pulsed field energy: a superior approach for ablation of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation? Evidence from randomized clinical trials.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2026Article
- Convergent Hybrid Ablation Versus Catheter Ablation in Patients With Persistent Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure: HALT AF Study Protocol and Rationale for a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of the American Heart Association · 2026Article
- Pulsed field ablation vs. thermal ablation for pulmonary vein isolation: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2026Article
- Evolution of Energy Sources in Surgical Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation: Current Technology and Future Directions.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Radiofrequency, Cryoablation, and Pulsed Field Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: Mechanisms, Preclinical Evidence, and Clinical Outcomes.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Long-term follow-up of patients with pulmonary hypertension after catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation and atrial tachycardia.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Pulmonary Vein Isolation: Comparing different energy sources - independent or complementary use?Indian pacing and electrophysiology journalReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsThis trial compared single-procedure efficacy and safety of pulsed field ablation (PFA) vs radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in patients with drug-resistant paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF).
methodsBEAT PAROX-AF is a European, multicentre, open-label, randomized, controlled, superiority trial conducted across nine European sites. Eligible patients (aged 18-80 years) with symptomatic, drug-resistant paroxysmal AF were randomized (1:1) to either PFA (pentaspline) or RFA following the CLOSE protocol (contact force sensing catheter and electro-anatomical mapping system). The primary endpoint was the single-procedure success rate after 12 months defined as the absence of ≥30 s atrial arrhythmia recurrence, cardioversion, class I/III antiarrhythmic drug resumption after a 2-month blanking period, or any repeat ablation.
resultsFrom December 2021 to January 2024, 292 patients were randomized and 289 (median age 63.5 years, 58% male) were analysed (PFA n = 145, RFA n = 144). Single-procedure success at 12 months was 112/145 (77.2%) in the PFA group and 111/143 (77.6%) in the RFA group (adjusted difference 0.9%; 95% confidence interval -8.2% to 10.1%; P = .84). Procedure-related serious adverse events occurred in 5 (3.4%) PFA vs 11 (7.6%) RFA patients (difference -3.3% [-8.4%, 1.8%]). No deaths, persistent phrenic palsy nor stroke occurred. In the RFA group, two patients had pulmonary vein stenosis >70% and 12 > 50%, two tamponades, and one oesophageal bleed.
conclusionsThis randomized trial performed in patients with paroxysmal AF did not demonstrate superior efficacy of single-shot PFA vs point-by-point RFA using the CLOSE protocol regarding single-procedure freedom from atrial arrhythmias, despite fewer safety events being observed in this study with PFA.
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.