ArticleEuropean heart journal. Case reports2026
First use of pulsed field ablation in a patient with a deep brain stimulator: a case report.
Article in European heart journal. Case reports, 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: Pulmonary vein isolation for atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with implanted neurostimulation devices is challenging, as established energy sources, such as radiofrequency (RF) ablation, are generally not recommended in these patients due to the risk of device interference. Pulsed field ablation (PFA) for AF offers relative myocardial selectivity and a potentially improved safety profile. However, data on its use in patients with implanted neurostimulation devices are lacking. Case summary: A 66-year-old woman with paroxysmal AF was referred to our centre for catheter ablation. Years earlier, a deep brain stimulator (DBS) had been implanted to control severe fasciculations. As RF ablation is not recommended in such patients and given the patient's multiple comorbidities, a single-shot ablation strategy was chosen. After selective pulmonary vein angiography revealed a large left common pulmonary vein (LCPV), PFA using a pentaspline catheter was selected, as this approach allows effective treatment of a LCPV with short procedure times and a favourable safety profile. The DBS was deactivated prior to the procedure and ablation was performed without complications. After the procedure, the DBS was reactivated and showed no evidence of device malfunction. Discussion: This is the first reported case that demonstrates the feasibility of PFA in a patient with an implanted DBS. Temporary deactivation of the neurostimulation device and careful multidisciplinary planning allowed successful ablation without device dysfunction or interference. These findings suggest that, with appropriate precautions, PFA may represent a viable ablation strategy in selected patients with implanted neurostimulation systems.
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.