ArticleJournal of arrhythmia2026
Safety and Efficacy of Pulsed Field Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Older Patients: An Observational Study at a Large Tertiary Centre in Australia.
Article in Journal of arrhythmia, 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.
- Procedural Management of Atrial Fibrillation in Older Patients.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
- Heterogeneity in endpoints, monitoring methods and blanking periods in clinical trials of atrial fibrillation ablation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Older patients have been under-represented in clinical trials of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. The safety of pulsed field ablation (PFA) in this cohort is not known. Methods: We conducted an observational study of consecutive patients undergoing PFA with a pentaspline catheter (Farapulse, Boston Scientific) for AF at a tertiary centre comparing procedural and clinical outcomes in patients aged ≥ 75 years (older cohort) versus < 75 years (younger cohort). Baseline demographics, procedural characteristics, complications, and clinical outcomes were collected. Arrhythmia recurrence was defined as AF, atrial flutter, or atrial tachycardia > 30 s at any follow-up. Results: 564 consecutive patients underwent de novo PFA for AF between 2022 and 2025; 65 patients were aged ≥ 75 years (11.5%) (median age 77 years; younger cohort median age 62 years). The older cohort had a higher incidence of hypertension, vascular disease, lower eGFR, and lower body mass index ( Conclusion: Pulsed field ablation for AF can be performed in older patients with acceptable procedural safety and clinical outcomes. Clinical trials are needed to further determine the safety and efficacy of PFA in older patients.
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.