SynthesisJournal of cardiovascular electrophysiology2026
Pulsed-Field Ablation for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis 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
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsPulsed field ablation (PFA) has emerged as a non-thermal alternative for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), offering shorter procedural times and a favorable safety profile for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. However, large-scale data evaluating its efficacy in patients with persistent AF remain limited. Our objective was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating 12-month atrial arrhythmia recurrence following PFA in patients with persistent AF.
methodsA systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, LILACS, and Cochrane databases was performed. Studies including patients with persistent AF undergoing first-time PVI with PFA and reporting 12-month arrhythmia-free survival were included. When available, outcomes were compared with thermal ablation using time-to-event analyses. Random-effects models were used. Exploratory meta-regression analyses were conducted to assess potential sources of heterogeneity.
resultsAmong 1699 screened studies, 26 met the inclusion criteria, comprising 3744 patients with persistent AF treated with PFA. The pooled 12-month freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence was 72.3% (95% CI, 69.0-75.5), with substantial heterogeneity (I² = 74.4%). Eight studies (31%) included a thermal comparator; pooled time-to-event analysis demonstrated no significant difference between PFA and thermal ablation (HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.78-1.07]). Exploratory meta-regression did not identify significant effect modification by baseline characteristics, lesion-set strategy, rhythm monitoring intensity, or year of publication. Ablation-related adverse events occurred in < 1% of cases for both energy sources.
conclusionIn patients with persistent AF, PFA is associated with a high arrhythmia-free survival at 12 months and low rates of ablation-related adverse events. Comparative findings versus thermal ablation should be considered exploratory and interpreted cautiously, given the limited and heterogeneous comparator data.
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.