SynthesisPacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE2026
Pulsed Field Ablation for Ventricular Arrhythmias: A Systematic Review and Single-Arm Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPulsed field ablation (PFA) is an emerging nonthermal ablation modality that can penetrate scar tissue more deeply. However, the evidence supporting its application in ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) is limited. This study summarizes relevant research and aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of PFA in the treatment of premature ventricular contractions (PVCs) or ventricular tachycardia (VT).
methodsA computer-based search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library identified studies evaluating PFA for VAs from database inception to December 31, 2025. Primary outcomes included acute procedural success rate, short- to mid-term success rate, and perioperative complication rate. A meta-analysis of single-arm studies was performed using a random-effects model with StataMP18.
resultsSix studies were included, comprising 149 patients (84 with PVCs, 65 with VT). The overall acute success rate was 88% (95% CI: 82%-93%), with PVCs at 88% (95% CI: 79%-95%) and VT at 90% (95% CI: 80%-97%). The short-to-mid-term success rate was 73% (95% CI: 65%-80%) overall, with 80% (95% CI: 70%-89%) for PVCs and 63% (95% CI: 46%-80%) for VT. The overall perioperative complication rate was 15% (95% CI: 6%-26%). PFA for VT ablation had longer procedure and fluoroscopy times, as well as a greater number of PFA applications, compared to PVCs, but with considerable heterogeneity.
conclusionsPFA demonstrates a good acute success rate and an acceptable perioperative complication rate in the treatment of VAs. While it shows a higher short-to-mid-term success rate in PVCs patients, its efficacy in VT patients remains limited.
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.