ArticleJournal of cardiovascular electrophysiology2026
A Comparison of Safety and Outcome Using Three Different Sedation Strategies During Pulsed Field Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation.
Article in Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology, 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
Abstract
backgroundPulsed field ablation (PFA) is an emerging modality for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. However, adequate sedation of patients during treatment is imperative.
objectiveOur aim was to compare safety and outcome after deep sedation (DS) managed by electrophysiology staff (EP-DS), DS by an anaesthesia nurse (AN-DS), and general anaesthesia (GA) during PFA AF ablation.
methodsAll Danish patients undergoing first-time AF ablation with pentaspline PFA technique from 2021 to 2024 were included. Patients were stratified according to sedation strategy. EP-DS and AN-DS were defined as sedation without assisted ventilation managed by EP staff and an anaesthesia nurse, respectively. Patients in GA underwent endotracheal intubation and were monitored by anaesthesia staff. Patient selection for the sedation strategy was based on the institutional practice.
resultsOf 1269 patients, 661 (52%) underwent EP-DS, 173 (14%) underwent AN-DS, and 435 (34%) underwent GA. Overall, sedation complications were few, and no procedures were abandoned due to adverse effects of sedation. In the EP-DS group, the anaesthesiologist was unexpectedly called for back-up in 1 (0.2%) patient due to prolonged hypotension during the procedure. In the AN-DS group, the anaesthesiologist was called due to desaturation in 1 patient (0.6%) but without the need for escalation to intubation. In the GA group, no periprocedural sedation complications occurred. We found no difference in 1-year atrial tachycardia recurrence between sedation groups.
conclusionIn this nationwide cohort, EP staff-administered deep sedation was feasible and associated with few clinically significant sedation-related adverse events during PFA. No significant differences in observed atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence rates were identified between sedation strategies.
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.