ArticleHeart rhythm O22026
Simplified propofol-based deep sedation by electrophysiologists: Safe and versatile for pulsed field and thermal ablation.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Sedation Strategy, Procedural Comfort, and Clinically Detected Radial Artery Spasm During Transradial Coronary Angiography: A Prospective Observational Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pulsed field ablation (PFA) induces substantial procedural pain and typically requires deep sedation or general anesthesia. However, limited anesthesia resources constrain broad PFA adoption. Objective: We evaluated a simplified propofol-based deep sedation (s-DS) protocol for its safety, feasibility, and adaptability across various ablation modalities. Methods: Between May 2023 and June 2025, 497 consecutive patients underwent ablation under an s-DS regimen (propofol infusion and low-dose fentanyl only) by the electrophysiology laboratory staff. Procedures included PFA (n = 403) and thermal ablation (n = 94) across diverse arrhythmia types. Sedation parameters, hemodynamics, and recovery metrics were prospectively recorded. The study was structured in 2 phases: implementation phase (phase 1 n = 144) and routine adoption (phase 2 n = 353). Time to the ward (TTW) served as a surrogate of team proficiency and workflow efficiency. Results: s-DS was feasible and safe. Urgent conversion to general anesthesia occurred in 1 patient (0.2%), and transient mask ventilation was required in 9 (1.8%). PFA required higher fentanyl doses ( Conclusion: s-DS by electrophysiology laboratory staff enabled safe, versatile, effective, and pain-free ablations across all energy sources and arrhythmia types. s-DS offered a resource-efficient workflow with short TTW and reduced the need for prolonged postprocedure observation.
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.