ArticleJournal of cardiovascular development and disease2026
Pulsed Field Ablation for the Treatment of Ventricular Arrhythmias Using a Focal, Contact-Force Sensing Catheter: A Single-Center Case Series and Review.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular development and disease, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Focal pulsed-field ablation for recurrent para-Hisian premature ventricular contractions after failed radiofrequency ablation: A case report.HeartRhythm case reports · 2026Article
- Efficacy and safety of pulsed field ablation for cavotricuspid isthmus-dependent atrial flutter: A meta-analysis based on real-world evidence.Heart rhythm O2 · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCatheter ablation is a validated treatment for ventricular arrhythmias (VA), but conventional radiofrequency (RF) energy may cause collateral injury due to non-selective thermal damage. Pulsed Field Ablation (PFA), a non-thermal modality based on irreversible electroporation, offers myocardial tissue selectivity and enhanced safety. While PFA is widely adopted for atrial arrhythmias' ablation, its application in the ventricles remains an evolving frontier.
methodsWe report a single-center experience using the Centauri PFA system integrated with a focal, contact-force sensing irrigated catheter (Tacticath™ SE, Abbott Laboratories, St. Paul, MN, USA) in four consecutive patients with drug-refractory VA. Two patients presented with frequent premature ventricular complexes (PVC) arising from the right and left ventricular outflow tract, respectively, while two had ischemic cardiomyopathy with recurrent scar-related ventricular tachycardia (VT). All procedures were guided by high-density mapping using the EnSite X system (Abbott Laboratories, St. Paul, MN, USA). Procedural safety, acute efficacy, and early follow-up outcomes were assessed.
resultsAll ablations achieved acute procedural success without complications. In both PVC cases, PFA led to immediate and complete suppression of ectopy, with a ≥95% reduction in arrhythmic burden at 12- and 9-months follow-up, respectively. In the VT cases, the arrhythmogenic substrate was effectively modified, rendering the clinical VT non-inducible. ICD interrogation during a 9-month follow-up showed complete absence of recurrent sustained VT. No coronary spasm, atrioventricular block, pericardial effusion, or other adverse events occurred.
conclusionsIn this initial experience, focal PFA using a contact-force sensing catheter appeared feasible and effective for both focal and scar-related VA. This system provides an intuitive workflow similar to RF ablation. While our data suggest a favourable safety profile, larger studies are required to definitively confirm safety margins near critical structures.
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.