ArticleHeart rhythm O22026
Intravascular hemolysis after pulsed field ablation for atrial fibrillation: A comparative analysis of 3 systems.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Intravascular hemolysis after pulsed field ablation (PFA) for atrial fibrillation contributes to renal dysfunction; however, the extent and clinical relevance may differ depending on the ablation system used. Objective: This study aimed to compare the extent of intravascular hemolysis across 3 pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) systems in patients with atrial fibrillation. Methods: This single-center study included consecutive patients who underwent PVI using 1 of the 3 PFA systems: FARAWAVE (FARA) (n = 29), VARIPULSE (VARI) (n = 30), or PulseSelect (PSelect) (n = 32). Haptoglobin levels and myocardial injury biomarkers were evaluated at 3 time points: before the procedure (T1), immediately after the procedure (T2), and the next day after the procedure (T3). Results: PVI was performed using standard application counts for each system (median [interquartile range] FARA 34 [33-37], VARI 18 [17-20], and PSelect 48 [42-49]; Conclusion: Intravascular hemolysis is frequent yet generally subclinical after PFA. FARA exhibited higher hemolysis than PSelect, whereas VARI demonstrated an intermediate profile. Despite these differences, no clinically meaningful renal impairment was observed under standard application counts.
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.