ArticleInternational journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature2026
PulseSelect vs FARAPULSE pulsed field ablation: Comparative analysis of myocardial, neural-injury and hemolysis biomarkers and short-term outcomes.
Article in International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature, 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.
- Recent highlights from theInternational journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Randomized trials have demonstrated safety and efficacy of pulsed field ablation (PFA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) using the FARAPULSE™ system (PFA-F). We evaluated implementation of the PulseSelect™ system (PFA-P) in a PFA-F experienced center. Methods: This single-center study included 150 consecutive patients undergoing first pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) with PFA-P ( Results: Baseline characteristics were comparable, except for a higher proportion of males in the PFA-F group. Acute PVI was comparable between groups (98% vs. 100%). Skin-to-skin time and radiation dose were similar, while fluoroscopy (14.3 vs. 11.9 min, Conclusion: Implementation of PFA-P is feasible with an evident learning curve in a PFA-F experienced center. Higher post-procedural cardiac biomarker levels may suggest a greater extent of local myocardial tissue damage after PFA-P. The impact of biomarkers on long-term outcome requires further studies.
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.