ArticleJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2026
"Awake but elsewhere": impact of augmented reality glasses on conscious sedation in balloon-in-basket pulsed field ablation.
Article in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 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.
- Monitored anesthesia care versus general anesthesia for balloon-in-basket pulsed-field ablation of atrial fibrillation: an age-matched analysis of procedural timing and acute procedural outcomes.Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionBalloon-in-basket pulsed field ablation (BiB-PFA) enables atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation under conscious sedation (CS). While augmented reality (AR) has been proposed to improve patient comfort during invasive procedures, its benefit in an already well-tolerated awake ablation setting remains uncertain.
objectiveTo evaluate the impact of adjunctive AR glasses on sedation requirements and patient comfort during BiB-PFA performed under CS.
methodsIn this prospective, single-center study, 50 patients undergoing AF ablation with BiB-PFA were treated under a standardized CS protocol. Patients were allocated to either ablation without AR (n = 25) or ablation with adjunctive AR glasses (n = 25). Sedation requirements and patient-reported outcomes were assessed during ablation, as well as at 1-hour and 1-day post-procedure.
resultsBaseline characteristics were comparable. All procedures were completed without conversion to deep sedation. Fentanyl requirements were lower in AR-group (1.1 vs. 1.4 µg/kg; p = 0.015), while other sedatives were similar. Intraprocedural pain was moderate and comparable. AR enhanced perceived calming effect (10.0 vs. 8.5; p = 0.015). Satisfaction was high in both groups. Recommendation scores were high overall, with higher values without AR (90(90,100) vs. 90 (70,90); p = 0.023). Retrospective anxiety at day 1 remained low but was higher with AR (2.0(0.0,5.0) vs. 0.0 (0.0,0.0); p = 0.002). Pain decreased over time in both (p < 0.001).
conclusionCS for BiB-PFA is feasible and well tolerated. Intraprocedural pain was low, while satisfaction and recommendation were high in both groups, with slightly higher values without AR support. AR use was associated with modest reduced opioid requirements, suggesting a potential role in selected patients. Slightly higher retrospectively reported anxiety at 1 day in AR-group, while overall low, warrants further investigation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42322511What 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.