Observational studyJournal of cardiovascular electrophysiology2026
Pulsed Field Ablation Is Associated With Fewer Post-Procedural Pericardial Inflammatory Symptoms Compared With Radiofrequency Ablation.
Observational study 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute pericarditis is an uncommon complication of thermal atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation, whereas milder pericardial inflammatory symptoms, typically pleuritic or positional chest pain, are more common and negatively affect post-procedural recovery. Pulsed field ablation (PFA), a non-thermal modality with tissue-selective properties, may reduce collateral pericardial injury. We compared post-procedural pericardial inflammatory symptoms and recovery after AF ablation using PFA vs. radiofrequency ablation (RFA).
methodsThis single-center observational study with prospective data collection included 150 patients undergoing catheter ablation for paroxysmal or persistent AF using focal PFA (n = 75) or RFA (n = 75). Patients were identified from the procedural workflow during the study period. Post-procedural pericardial inflammatory symptoms, chest pain severity (5-point scale), anti-inflammatory therapy use, length of hospital stay, and biomarkers of inflammation (CRP) and myocardial injury (hs-TnT) were assessed during hospitalization and structured post-discharge follow-up.
resultsBaseline characteristics were similar between groups. Post-procedural chest pain occurred more frequently after RFA than PFA (32% vs. 5.3%, p < 0.001), despite a significantly greater proportion of patients in the PFA group receiving lesion sets beyond pulmonary vein isolation (94.7% vs. 73.3%, p < 0.001). Anti-inflammatory therapy was prescribed more frequently after RFA (20% vs. 2.7%, p = 0.001), and hospital length of stay was longer [2 (1-2) vs. 1(1-1) days, p = 0.03). Procedure duration was shorter with PFA (86 ± 36 vs. 122 ± 55 min, p < 0.001). Median hs-TnT levels were higher after PFA [1288 (865-2137) vs. 1001 (652-1368] ng/L, p = 0.01), whereas CRP levels were similar [10.4 (4.9-23.3) vs. 10.5 (6.9-27.3) mg/L; p = 0.38].
conclusionsPFA was associated with fewer post-procedural pericardial inflammatory symptoms, reduced need for anti-inflammatory therapy, and faster recovery compared with RFA. These findings suggest reduced pericardial irritation and improved patient-centered recovery after AF ablation.
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.