ArticleCardiology journal2026
Perioperative parameters and myocardial necrosis: a real-world comparison of Farapulse and Varipulse.
Article in Cardiology journal, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPulsed field ablation (PFA) has emerged as a promising method for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) due to its myocardial-selective mechanism and a favorable safety profile. Among the available technologies, Farapulse (Boston Scientific Corporation, Marlborough, USA) and Varipulse (Biosense Webster Inc, New Brunswick, USA) are the two leading PFA systems. However, comparative data regarding their perioperative performance and impact on myocardial injury remain limited. This study aimed to evaluate and compare perioperative outcomes and myocardial injury, assessed by postprocedural troponin I levels, in patients undergoing first-time PVI with the Farapulse or Varipulse system in a real-world clinical setting.
methodsIn this prospective analysis of 50 patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing first-time PVI, Farapulse (n = 25) and Varipulse (n = 25) systems were compared by assessing procedure duration, fluoroscopy time, 12-hour postprocedural troponin I levels, first-pass isolation (FPI) rates, and periprocedural complications (atrial-esophageal fistula, periprocedural stroke, pseudoaneurysm, vascular complications, and AF recurrence before discharge).
resultsFarapulse-based procedures were shorter than those performed using the Varipulse system (median duration 50 vs. 55 min; p <0.001) but were associated with longer fluoroscopy times (median, 646 vs.177 s; p <0.001) and higher median troponin levels (15386 vs. 9937 ng/L; p <0.001). No significant differences were observed in FPI (76% vs. 56%; p = 0.23) or complication rates.
conclusionsIn a real-world cohort, Farapulse was associated with shorter procedure times, while Varipulse, aided by 3D mapping, was linked to reduced fluoroscopy exposure and lower troponin release. These findings highlight the need for further studies on long-term outcomes and optimization across different PFA systems.
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.