ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2026
Current and Emerging Energy Sources for Atrial Fibrillation Ablation: A Comparative Analysis of Clinical Efficacy, Safety, and Procedural Implementation.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Atrial fibrillation (AF) management has historically relied on thermal ablation modalities-radiofrequency (RF) and cryoballoon-which have established a high benchmark for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). However, the inherent risk of collateral thermal injury and lesion inconsistency has driven the search for alternative energy sources. The recent clinical adoption of pulsed-field ablation (PFA), based on irreversible electroporation, represents a significant technological evolution. This narrative review provides a critical appraisal of the transition from thermal to pulsed-field technologies. We synthesized data from pivotal trials and recent health-economic analyses to evaluate the biophysical mechanisms, clinical efficacy, and safety profiles of contemporary devices. We conduct a head-to-head comparison of all modalities regarding critical safety endpoints (esophageal, neurological, and vascular), real-world procedural challenges (anesthesia, lesion assessment), and economic sustainability. While PFA offers distinct advantages in procedural speed and tissue selectivity, we highlight that thermal modalities-particularly cryoballoon and very-high-power RF-retain competitive profiles in terms of cost-effectiveness and established long-term durability. This review aims to provide a balanced roadmap for clinicians navigating the complex choice between established thermal efficacy and the promising, yet evolving, landscape of electroporation.
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.