ArticleEuropace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology2026
Pulsed field ablation vs. thermal ablation for pulmonary vein isolation: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Article in Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology, 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
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsPulsed field ablation (PFA) has recently emerged as a promising alternative to conventional energy sources (ES) for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. However, comparative data between PFA and other ES-such as radiofrequency (RFA), cryoballoon (CBA), and laser balloon ablation (LBA)-remain limited.This network meta-analysis (CRD420251054760) aimed to compare outcomes of PFA vs. thermal ES for AF ablation. METHODS AND
resultsA systematic network meta-analysis using PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE from inception to March 2026 was performed. Randomized controlled trials comparing different ES in first-attempt pulmonary vein isolation were included. Data extraction was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcome was the recurrence of any sustained atrial tachyarrhythmia (ATA) at 12-month follow-up. Safety and efficiency outcomes were also compared among groups. We included 18 studies, encompassing 4162 patients. Compared to PFA, thermal ablation technologies showed a higher risk of ATA recurrence at 12-month follow-up (RFA: RR of 1.48 (95% CI 1.10-2.00); CBA: 1.43 (95% CI 1.07-1.92); LBA: RR 1.29 (CI 95% 0.84-1.98)). PFA exhibited the lowest procedural time among transcatheter ES, whereas RFA displayed a significantly lower fluoroscopy time. No significant differences were recorded for major periprocedural complications. A subgroup analysis restricted to studies involving only paroxysmal AF patients, as well as those employing contemporary technologies, yielded consistent findings.
conclusionThe present data indicate that, in patients undergoing a first transcatheter AF ablation, PFA may be associated with favourable efficacy and procedural efficiency compared with traditional thermal technologies, while showing a broadly comparable safety profile.
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.