ArticleHeart rhythm O22026
A network meta-analysis of comparative effectiveness and safety of pulsed field, radiofrequency, and cryoballoon ablation for atrial fibrillation.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pulsed field ablation (PFA) has emerged as a non-thermal alternative to radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and cryoballoon ablation (CBA) for atrial fibrillation (AF). Despite several individual comparisons, integrated comparison across 3 modalities remains limited. Objective: To compare the efficacy, safety, and procedural characteristics of PFA, RFA, and CBA for AF ablation. Methods: We performed frequentist network meta-analysis (using pooled odds ratios [ORs] and mean differences[MDs]) of studies comparing PFA, RFA, and CBA. Outcomes included recurrence of atrial arrhythmias, AF recurrence, atrial tachycardia (AT)/atrial flutter (AFL) recurrence, peri-procedural complications, pericardial complications, procedure time, and fluoroscopy time. Results: Thirty-four studies involving 6961 patients were included. PFA demonstrated lower atrial arrhythmia recurrence compared with RFA (OR 0.71) and CBA (OR 0.83), while CBA was superior to RFA (OR 0.85). Among paroxysmal AF patients, PFA demonstrated lower atrial arrhythmia recurrence than RFA (OR 0.62) and CBA (OR 0.57), while CBA and RFA were comparable. For AF recurrence, PFA demonstrated lower risk compared with RFA (OR 0.56) and CBA (OR 0.62), while CBA and RFA were comparable. AT/AFL recurrence was similar between PFA and other modalities, while CBA showed lower recurrence risk than RFA (OR 0.48). Overall peri-procedural complications were comparable. CBA had fewer pericardial complications than RFA (OR 0.27) and PFA (OR 3.23). PFA had shorter procedure times than RFA (MD -30.8 min) and CBA (MD -14.25 min), but longer fluoroscopy times versus RFA (MD +6.8 min) and CBA (MD +3.9 min). Conclusion: PFA demonstrates favorable efficacy and shorter procedure times with similar overall safety.
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.