SynthesisBMC cardiovascular disorders2026
Safety and efficacy of the pulsed field ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPulsed field ablation (PFA) has emerged as an innovative non-thermal approach with significant promise for treating atrial fibrillation (AF). However, comparative data between PFA and thermal ablation (TA, including cryoballoon ablation [CBA] and radiofrequency ablation [RFA]) for persistent AF (PerAF) remain limited.
methodsA systematic search was conducted in the Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to include all relevant studies that compared PFA with TA.
resultsSix trials involving 1610 patients were included in the study. Pooled analyses revealed that PFA exerted significant advantages over TA, characterized by lower recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmias (ATAs) (risk ratio [RR]: 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.70 to 0.97; P = 0.02), especially for AF recurrence (RR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.65 to 0.95; P = 0.015). Furthermore, PFA significantly reduced procedural time (standard mean difference [SMD]: -1.25; 95% CI: -1.87 to - 0.64; P < 0.00001) and left atrial dwell (LAD) time (SMD: -14.21; 95% CI: -27.60 to - 0.82; P = 0.04). No significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding fluoroscopy time and complications.
conclusionPFA is effective and safe for PerAF treatment, featuring shorter procedure time, LAD time and lower ATAs recurrence.
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.