ReviewArrhythmia & electrophysiology review2026
A Review of Potential Complications of Pulsed Field Ablation for AF: Beneath the Surface.
Review in Arrhythmia & electrophysiology review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of pulsed field ablation and very high-power short-duration ablation for atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Procedural Management of Atrial Fibrillation in Older Patients.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Review
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
Pulsed field ablation (PFA) for AF has changed the landscape of AF treatment globally. While clinical trial data have shown non-inferiority compared with thermal ablation, the safety profile of this technology is still being understood. Large post-approval registry data are now accumulating and have invariably demonstrated that rather than PFA being necessarily safer than conventional thermal ablation, the safety profile is simply different. Pericardial tamponade remains a risk and may even be greater compared with thermal ablation. Coronary artery spasm has been recognised, particularly with off-label use of PFA. Haemolysis and associated acute kidney injury are unique complications related to PFA. Stroke risk persists with likely multiple causes. Other complications, such as femoral venous injury, vagal responses and transient phrenic nerve injury, are increasingly recognised. In this review, we summarise recent data regarding potential complications associated with PFA, including mechanisms, risk factors, management and prevention.
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.