ArticleJournal of arrhythmia2026
Outcomes of Pulsed Field Versus Cryoballoon Ablation in Atrial Fibrillation: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in Journal of arrhythmia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pulsed field ablation versus thermal ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2026Article
- Atrial Fibrillation Burden: Assessment, Clinical Significance, and Therapeutic Implications.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Safety and feasibility of a balloon-based pulsed field ablation system for the catheter ablation of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2026Article
- Outcomes of Pulsed Field Versus Cryoballoon Ablation in Atrial Fibrillation: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of arrhythmia · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Catheter-based pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is an established treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF). While cryoballoon ablation (CBA) is a well-validated single-shot thermal technology, pulsed field ablation (PFA) has emerged as a predominantly non-thermal modality that employs high-voltage electric fields to achieve selective myocardial ablation, potentially minimizing collateral damage. However, comparative evidence between PFA and CBA remains limited. Objectives: To systematically review and compare the efficacy, safety, and procedural efficiency of PFA versus CBA for PVI. Methods and Results: A structured systematic database search was conducted up to August 2025, following PRISMA guidelines. Eighteen studies ( Conclusion: PFA offers superior procedural efficiency and safety compared with CBA, achieving shorter procedures, fewer complications, and lower arrhythmia recurrence at mid-term follow-up. Larger multicentre randomized trials with standardized protocols and long-term follow-up are needed to confirm these findings and evaluate evolving PFA technologies.
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.