ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2026
High-power-short-duration-radiofrequency-, cryoballoon-, and pulsed-field-ablation: a prospective clinical study.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPulmonary vein isolation aims to reduce the burden of atrial fibrillation leading to symptom alleviation and improvement in quality of life. The newer pulsed-field ablation offers a non-thermal alternative to radiofrequency- and cryoballoon- ablation. We present one of the first clinical, pilot prospective comparisons of these three procedures with respect to freedom from recurrence up to one year, procedure safety, and assessment of quality of life.
methodsLocalization of the pulmonary veins during pulsed-field ablation and radiofrequency ablation was supported by electroanatomical mapping, whereas only fluoroscopy was used for cryoballoon ablation. The ablation techniques also differed in terms of energy delivery. Pulsed-field ablation and cryoballoon ablation used a single-shot technique, while radiofrequency ablation used high-power, short-duration energies (50 W/10 Seconds) with point-by-point lesions. The study included 36 patients, 15 of whom were treated with pulsed-field ablation, 10 with high-power, short-duration radiofrequency ablation and 11 with cryoballoon ablation.
resultsCryoballoon ablation showed the shortest ablation and catheter-dwell times. The fluoroscopy time and the dose area product were lowest for radiofrequency ablation. No recurrences of atrial fibrillation were recorded in the cryoballoon ablation group during the follow-up period, whereas 26.7% of participants in the pulsed-field ablation group and 30.0% in the radiofrequency ablation did. These differences, however, were not statistically significant. Quality of life showed a significant improvement in all three study groups.
conclusionsAll three ablation procedures achieved the goal of reducing symptom burden with no statistically significant differences with respect to atrial fibrillation recurrence. Due to the great epidemiological significance of the disease, larger studies are needed to evaluate the success of the three ablation methods.
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.