ArticleJournal of arrhythmia2026
Clinical Outcomes of Pulsed Field Vs. Thermal Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Evidence.
Article in Journal of arrhythmia, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a non-thermal alternative to conventional thermal ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). We conducted an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized evidence comparing efficacy, safety, and procedural outcomes. Methods: PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception through March 2026 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PFA with thermal ablation in adults undergoing first catheter ablation for paroxysmal AF. Risk ratios (RRs) or mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using random-effects models. Results: Four RCTs enrolling 1 393 patients were included. PFA showed no statistically detectable difference in 12-month treatment success (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.12; Conclusions: Across the included trial configurations, 12-month efficacy estimates did not differ detectably. Sparse safety events and wide confidence intervals precluded equivalence claims. Pooled procedure and LA dwell times favored PFA, but platform, comparator, and workflow heterogeneity limit generalizability. Procedural findings are exploratory and should not be interpreted as direct energy-specific effects.
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.