ReviewJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2026
Pulsed-field ablation versus cryoballoon ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation: A systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression.
Review in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCryoballoon ablation (CBA) is a widely used method for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), while Pulsed-Field ablation (PFA) is a newer, non-thermal technique that shows promise for improved safety and efficacy.
methodsPubMed and Cochrane Library were searched until June 2025 for studies comparing PFA and CBA techniques for atrial fibrillation (AF). We included randomized controlled trials and observational studies that directly compared PFA and CBA in patients with AF, including both paroxysmal and persistent AF. The primary outcome was arrhythmia recurrence. The secondary outcomes included phrenic nerve palsy, cardiac tamponade, and vascular access complications, total ablation time, total procedure duration, fluoroscopy time, and high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) measured one day after PVI. Effect estimates were synthesized using a random-effects model and expressed as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered significant throughout the analysis.
resultsOur meta-analysis included 24 studies with 6,435 patients (2,877 PFA; 3,558 CBA). For the outcome of arrhythmia recurrence, it was significantly lower in PFA (RR: 0.76; CI [0.68, 0.86]; p < 0.0001) compared to patients undergoing CBA. Regarding secondary outcomes, phrenic nerve palsy (RR: 0.17; CI [0.08, 0.36]; P < 0.00001) was found to be significantly lower in the PFA arm. From the continuous outcomes, total procedure duration (MD: -11.37; CI [-15.02, -7.72]; P < 0.00001), total ablation duration (MD: -16.48; CI [-18.03, -14.93]; P < 0.00001) were significantly shorter in the PFA group compared to the CBA group. As for fluoroscopy time (MD: 1.42; CI [0.42, 2.41]; P = 0.005) and hs-cTnT 1 day after PVI (MD: 500.56; CI [311.61, 689.50]; P < 0.00001) were statistically higher in the PFA. All other secondary outcomes were found to be statistically insignificant.
conclusionPFA was associated with lower arrhythmia recurrence, fewer complications, and shorter procedure times compared to CBA, though with higher fluoroscopy time and hs-cTnT levels.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41886187What 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.