ArticleHeart rhythm O22026
Design and rationale of the pulse field ablation for postinfarction ventricular tachycardia: The ASCEND-VT pilot study.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) continues to be a challenging procedure with variable outcomes. Most current ablations are done using radiofrequency ablation (RFA). The new pulsed field ablation (PFA) technology may be able to achieve similar or superior procedural outcomes but potentially over shorter periods of time with less intravascular fluid infusion, but this possibility has never been tested. Objective: This study aimed to compare the procedural efficacy and safety of VT ablation in patients with ICM using focal PFA vs RFA catheters. Methods: This ASCEND-VT pilot study is a single-center trial randomizing patients to RFA vs PFA VT ablation in a 1:1 fashion. The new focal PFA catheter will be used under an investigational device exemption granted by the US Food and Drug Administration. Patients with mechanical valves will be excluded. The primary ablation target will be homogenization of endocardial late abnormal ventricular activity. Patients will be followed for 6 months after the procedure. Results: 40 individuals will be randomized. The primary efficacy metric will be the ablation time needed to eliminate late abnormal ventricular activities in each patient. Additional efficacy and safety endpoints will be interrogated after the procedure and during outpatient follow-up. Conclusion: This is the first pilot randomized controlled trial comparing the safety and efficacy of focal PFA vs RFA VT ablation in ICM. Its results will inform the design of future larger studies that will further establish the clinical utility of PFA in the context of scar-related VT 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.