ArticleJournal of cardiovascular electrophysiology2026
Comparison of Two Pulsed Field Ablation Systems for Atrial Fibrillation: One-Year Outcomes From a Multicenter Registry.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology, 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile various pulsed field ablation (PFA) systems for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation have become available in recent years, data comparing long-term efficacy outcomes remain limited. PURPOSE: To compare long-term efficacy outcomes of two commercially available PFA systems to perform pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) for AF in a multicenter clinical setting.
methodsWe conducted an international, multicenter, registry study of patients with AF undergoing a first ablation between January 29, 2024, and September 1, 2024. Patients were treated with either the pentaspline catheter or the circular over-the-wire catheter in all centers. Endpoints included time to recurrence of atrial arrhythmias following a 2-month blanking period and repeat ablation outcomes. Factors associated with recurrence were assessed.
resultsA total of 428 patients were included, of whom 231 (54.0%) were treated with the pentaspline catheter. Most patients (84.6%) underwent a PVI-only procedure, with significantly longer procedure and LA dwell times observed in the circular catheter group (p < 0.001). Acute procedural success was achieved in all patients. At 12 months, AF-recurrence was observed in 33.5% of patients overall, with similar rates between groups (pentaspline catheter 34.1% vs. circular catheter 32.8% [log-rank p = 0.93]). A longer time since AF diagnosis and persistent AF were associated with recurrence of AF. Repeat ablation was performed in 14.9% of patients.
conclusionIn this study, we compared two commercially available PFA systems for primary PVI in AF patients. Both achieved high acute success and similar 12-month AF recurrence rates, indicating comparable efficacy.
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.