ArticleJournal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing2026
Post-market individual-report phenotypes after pulsed-field ablation for atrial fibrillation in a food and drug administration database.
Article in Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing, 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
purposeTo characterize individual-case medical device reports submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database for commercially available pulsed-field ablation systems during early postmarket use.
methodsWe analyzed reports received from February 1, 2024, through April 30, 2026. Master event, device, patient, patient problem code, device problem code, and narrative files were merged by report key. Literature-derived, clinical study-derived, false-positive, indeterminate, and exact duplicate narrative reports were excluded from the primary individual-case cohort. A prespecified hierarchy and targeted narrative review classified reporting phenotypes, reported clinical event categories, and device problem code categories. Duplicate-removal sensitivity analyses were performed.
resultsOf 11,563 potential reports, 10,976 individual-case reports formed the primary cohort. Device malfunction without identified patient injury accounted for 7,323 reports (66.7%), patient injury for 3,554 (32.4%), and unclear/no coded clinical event for 99 (0.9%). The most commonly reported clinical event categories were tamponade/perforation/pericardial effusion (n = 1,014), arrhythmia/cardioversion/hemodynamic events (n = 444), stroke/TIA/neurovascular events (n = 383), coronary spasm/injury/ischemia (n = 324), death (n = 197), hemolysis/renal injury (n = 114), phrenic/diaphragm injury (n = 42), and plausible esophageal or upper gastrointestinal concerns (n = 6). Duplicate removal did not materially change the report-category hierarchy.
conclusionsThe value of this report-level surveillance analysis is characterization of report and event categories rather than incidence estimation. Future pulsed-field ablation registries should capture anticoagulation-related variables, patient-reported outcomes, lesion set and application burden, and adjudicated neurologic, coronary, renal, esophageal, and phrenic outcomes. PFA MAUDE reports identify electroporation-and workflow-relevant surveillance domains that should be prospectively captured, including anticoagulation variables, patient-reported outcomes, lesion set, application burden, and adjudicated clinical outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42671687What 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.