ArticleHeart rhythm O22026
High-power, very-high-power, and low-power radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation: A Bayesian network meta-analysis.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: High-power short-duration (HPSD) and very-high-power short-duration (vHPSD) radiofrequency (RF) strategies have been proposed to improve lesion quality and procedural efficiency in atrial fibrillation ablation. Objective: This study aimed to compare HPSD, vHPSD, and low-power long-duration (LPLD) ablation by performing a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis. Methods: Following Cochrane/Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guidance, multiple databases were searched, and 51 studies (13,751 patients) were included. Consistent and unrelated-mean-effects models were fitted, inconsistency and design-by-treatment tests assessed coherence, and leave-one-out and Egger's analyses explored robustness and small-study effects. The primary outcome was atrial arrhythmia recurrence, and secondary outcomes included procedural safety (in-hospital complications) and efficiency parameters (procedure, fluoroscopy, and RF time). Treatment ranking was derived using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve. Results: Both HPSD and vHPSD reduced recurrence compared with LPLD (rate ratios [RR] 0.85; 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.75-0.96; and RR 0.79; 95% CrI 0.64-0.96, respectively), whereas the vHPSD vs HPSD comparison was inconclusive (RR 0.93; 95% CrI 0.75-1.13). Ranking suggested vHPSD as having the highest probability of being the better choice for procedural outcomes (79% vHPSD, 21% HPSD, 0% LPLD). Safety was comparable among RF strategies. Procedure and RF times were shorter with high-power approaches (approximately 34 minutes shorter); HPSD had the shortest fluoroscopy time (-7 minutes vs LPLD), and vHPSD had the shortest RF time (-24 minutes vs LPLD). Conclusion: High-power RF strategies were associated with improved procedural efficiency and, in the overall evidence base, lower recurrence than conventional LPLD; however, recurrence benefit was mainly supported by observational evidence. Comparative safety showed no significant differences. Adequately powered randomized trials are warranted to clarify long-term outcomes and directly compare HPSD and vHPSD.
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.