ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Clinical and procedural outcomes of very high-power short-duration vs. standard power ablation for pulmonary vein isolation.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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
Introduction: Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) using shorter but higher-power radiofrequency (RF) applications can improve lesion quality and reduce procedural time compared to the standard approach, while ensuring similar clinical and safety outcomes. The aim of this study was to compare very high-power short-duration (vHPSD) with standard-power atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation regarding clinical outcomes, procedural efficiency and safety. Methods: All patients who underwent first PVI using RF energy between January 2021 and June 2024 were included. The two groups (standard-power vs. vHPSD AF ablation) were matched using a propensity score analysis and compared at 12 months regarding freedom from AF recurrence, quality of life improvement and safety. Results: 333 patients were submitted to PVI, and after the propensity score analysis, 226 patients were analysed (65.0% male, median age 62.8 years, comparable baseline characteristics). The median follow-up time was 554 days (IQR 351, 729) for the vHPSD group and 728 days (IQR 555, 730) for the standard group ( Conclusion: VHPSD AF ablation was a more efficient technique with a shorter procedural time, achieving similar clinical outcomes despite having a lower FPI rate. Both techniques appeared to be safe with low prevalence of adverse effects.
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.