ArticlePacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE2026
Myocardial and Neural Damage due to Pulmonary Vein Isolation: Comparison of Pulsed Electric Field and Thermal Ablation.
Article in Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundPulmonary vein isolation (PVI) using thermal energy-radiofrequency (RF) or cryoablation (CRYO)-is associated with direct myocardial injury and collateral neural damage. In contrast, pulsed electric field (PEF) energy has emerged as a neural-sparing alternative. There is a lack of quantitative data on proportional neural damage resulting from individual ablation energies.
objectiveTo assess the impact of PVI by RF, CRYO and PEF on the release of plasma biomarkers of myocardial and neural damage.
methodsThis study included 85 patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation undergoing PVI (age: 61 ± 12 years, 74% males). Ablation was performed with PEF in 32 patients, RF in 23, and CRYO in 30. Peripheral venous blood samples were collected before, immediately after PVI, and the day after the procedure to measure plasma levels of S100 binding protein (S100B), high-sensitivity troponin I (hsTnI), and high-sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT). Groups were compared based on maximum biomarker levels and the (hsTnI/hsTnT)/S100B ratio as an index of cardioselectivity.
resultsFollowing PVI, all energy modalities caused significant myocardial injury, with PEF showing the most pronounced effects (maximum hsTnT: 1476, 958 and 967 ng/L; maximum hsTnI: 12659, 1699 and 8109 ng/L; for PEF, RF and CRYO, respectively). Maximum S100B levels indicating the neural impact were highest in the CRYO group (80, 80 and 190 ng/L for PEF, RF and CRYO, respectively). PEF exhibited the greatest cardioselectivity, as indicated by the highest (hsTnI/hsTnT)/S100B ratio (0.11 ± 0.04, 0.02 ± 0.01 and 0.05 ± 0.05 for PEF, RF and CRYO, respectively). Interestingly, no correlation was observed between S100B release and heart rate acceleration (R = 0.07, p = 0.51).
conclusionPEF is the most cardioselective modality of ablation energy currently available for the treatment of atrial fibrillation. The neuromodulatory effect of PVI on the sinus node appears to be independent of the magnitude of neural damage.
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.