ArticleCJC open2026
Pulsed Field Ablation with the Pentaspline Catheter vs Radiofrequency Ablation for Recurrent Atrial Fibrillation.
Article in CJC open, 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: Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a non-thermal energy modality for catheter ablation. Although recent studies have demonstrated that PFA is noninferior to radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for the initial treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF), its comparative efficacy and safety in patients who had AF recurrence following the initial ablation procedure remain unknown. Methods: From July 1, 2024 to September 30, 2024, 223 consecutive patients who had AF recurrence following the initial ablation procedure were prospectively enrolled from 2 participating centres and underwent either PFA using the pentaspline catheter (PFA group, n = 77) or RFA (RFA group, n = 146), based on clinical judgment. The effectiveness endpoint was freedom from AF/atrial tachycardia (AT) recurrence at 12 months. Results: At 12 months, no significant difference was present in the rate of freedom from AF/AT recurrence between the PFA and RFA groups (71.4% vs 67.8%; log-rank Conclusions: In patients who had AF recurrence following the initial ablation procedure, PFA using a pentaspline catheter demonstrated comparable effectiveness and safety to RFA, with similar rates of freedom from AF/AT recurrence and adverse events at 12 months.
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.