ArticleEuropean heart journal. Case reports2026
A case report of persistent phrenic nerve injury following pulsed field ablation using a pentaspline catheter.
Article in European heart journal. Case reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Safety considerations and clinical monitoring during pulsed field ablation.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 · 2026Review
- Specific effects of Pulsed Field Ablation on the cardiac tissue, the nervous system and the conduction system in experimental and clinical studies.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 · 2026Review
- Transient phrenic nerve stunning during superior vena cava isolation after focal pulsed field ablation.HeartRhythm case reports · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is an emerging non-thermal ablation modality for atrial fibrillation (AF), characterized by its myocardial selectivity and reduced risk of collateral damage to extracardiac structures such as the oesophagus and phrenic nerve (PN). While transient phrenic nerve injury (PNI) has been reported, persistent diaphragmatic paralysis remains exceedingly rare. Case presentation: We report the case of a 49-year-old man with paroxysmal AF, refractory to medical therapy, who underwent pulmonary vein isolation using the FARAPULSE PFA system. The procedure was uneventful, and the patient was discharged the same day. However, he reported significant breathlessness on minimal exertion starting the day after the procedure. At his 6-week follow-up, physical examination revealed reduced air entry at the right lung base. A contrast-enhanced computed tomography chest confirmed an elevated right hemidiaphragm (9.0 cm posteriorly, 7.5 cm anteriorly), consistent with right PN palsy. The patient remained in sinus rhythm and asymptomatic from an arrhythmic standpoint, but continues to experience persistent dyspnoea. Discussion: To our knowledge, this represents one of the early cases of persistent PN palsy following PFA with the FARAPULSE system. Although PFA is designed to target cardiomyocytes while sparing adjacent tissues selectively, proximity to the right PN-particularly near the right superior pulmonary vein-may still pose a risk. This case highlights the importance of procedural vigilance, including meticulous catheter positioning and careful consideration of nerve proximity. It highlights that persistent PNI, while rare, remains a potential complication of 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.