ReviewEuropace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology2026
Treatment of paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation with pulsed field ablation.
Review in Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pulsed field ablation has emerged as a novel energy source for atrial fibrillation ablation, offering preferential myocardial ablation with a favourable safety profile. Contemporary paroxysmal AF clinical studies demonstrate 12-month freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence in approximately 75-85% of patients, with major complication rates generally ranging from 1 to 3%. Compared with thermal ablation, PFA offers comparable efficacy and streamlined procedural workflows. In persistent AF, PVI remains the foundation of ablation, while additional adjunctive strategies are increasingly evaluated. Current evidence suggests that PFA can achieve 12-month arrhythmia-free outcomes generally ranging from approximately 60-75% in persistent AF populations. Major procedure-related complications typically occur in <3% of cases, supporting the feasibility of broader lesion sets with an acceptable safety profile. However, the incremental benefit of adjunctive ablation beyond PVI and the optimal lesion set for persistent AF remain to be assessed further Outcome assessment after PFA requires consideration of evolving endpoints. The clinical relevance of the traditional post-ablation blanking period is being re-evaluated, while continuous rhythm monitoring and AF burden are increasingly incorporated alongside conventional recurrence endpoints. Patient-reported outcomes are an important component of PFA evaluation. Compared with thermal ablation, PFA is associated with improved procedural tolerability, reduced analgesic requirements, rapid recovery, and the potential for same-day discharge. These features, together with favourable efficacy and safety outcomes, may contribute to broader adoption of PFA across both paroxysmal and persistent AF populations.
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.