ArticleJournal of cardiovascular electrophysiology2026
Impact of Pulse Field Ablation on Hemolysis Markers: A Single-Center Experience.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology, 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.
- Impact of Pulse Field Ablation on Hemolysis Markers: A Single-Center Experience.Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPulse field ablation (PFA) has gained attention as an alternative modality for ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) due to its favorable safety profile compared with thermal ablation. However, hemolysis has emerged as a unique concern with PFA, yet the risk factors underlying its development and the extent to which it translates into renal complications remain poorly defined.
methodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study of patients with atrial fibrillation who underwent PFA at our health system between June 2024 and May 2025. Postprocedural hemolysis was assessed using plasma-free hemoglobin (Hb) levels, with patients stratified into high (> 30 mg/dL) and normal/low (≤ 30 mg/dL) groups. Baseline characteristics, procedural details, and renal outcomes were compared between groups, and multivariable analyses were conducted to identify independent risk factors associated with hemolysis.
resultsA total of 232 patients (FARAPULSE [Manufacturer 1 PFA system] in 173 patients [74.6%]; PulseSelect [Manufacturer 2 system] in 59 patients [25.4%]) underwent PFA (mean age 67.5 ± 9.6, 34.1% female), of whom 109 (47.0%) developed high postprocedural plasma-free Hb (> 30 mg/dL). Baseline demographics were similar between groups, but patients with high free Hb were more often treated with the Manufacturer 1 PFA system (91.7% vs. 59.3%, p < 0.01), underwent PVI with additional ablation (73.4% vs. 45.5%, p < 0.01), and received a greater number of applications (63.2 ± 14.9 vs. 51.1 ± 11.5, p < 0.01). On multivariable analysis, independent risk factors associated with hemolysis included use of the Manufacturer 1 system (aOR 6.67, 95% CI 2.94-16.47), total applications > 59 (aOR 4.25, 95% CI 2.04-9.19), and higher preprocedural hemoglobin level (aOR 1.52, 95% CI 1.19-1.97). The rate of AKI was low and similar between the two groups (0.9% vs. 0.8%, p = 1.00). None of the patients required renal replacement therapy.
conclusionOur real-world study, following the commercial approval of PFA systems, showed that 47% of patients developed subclinical hemolysis after PFA, with no actionable clinical outcomes.
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.