SynthesisJournal of cardiovascular electrophysiology2025
Efficacy and Safety of Pulsed-Field Versus High-Power Short-Duration Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis With Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data.
Synthesis in Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and safety of pulsed field ablation and very high-power short-duration ablation for atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Pulsed Field Ablation Versus High-Power Short-Duration Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation-A Meta-Analysis of Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2026Review
- Pulsed-Field Ablation in Adult Congenital Heart Disease: Promise, Prudence, and the Path Forward.JACC. Case reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPulsed-field ablation (PFA) and high-power short-duration (HPSD) ablation (45-90 W) are emerging technologies in atrial fibrillation (AF) treatment, both achieving durable pulmonary vein isolation. We aim to investigate the efficacy and safety of PFA versus HPSD ablation.
methodsWe comprehensively searched PubMed, Web of Science (WOS), Scopus, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) through July 2024. Pairwise meta-analysis with reconstructed time-to-event analysis were performed using R version 4.3.1 (PROSPERO ID: CRD42024576031).
resultsSeven observational studies, including 1904 patients, were included. PFA was significantly associated with lower atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence compared to HPSD ablation (45-90 W) at the longest follow-up (RR: 0.73, 95% CI [0.60, 0.88], p < 0.01). Subgroup analysis revealed a significant reduction in atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence with PFA versus HPSD ablation (45-50 W) (RR: 0.69, 95% CI [0.54, 0.88], p < 0.01), but not compared to vHPSD ablation (70-90 W). Reconnected pulmonary vein rates were significantly lower with PFA compared to HPSD (45-50 W) (p = 0.03), while no significant difference was observed compared to vHPSD (70-90 W). PFA was significantly associated with reduced procedural duration (MD: -33.15 with 95% CI [-40.93, -25.36], p < 0.01) and left atrial dwell time (MD: -32.16 with 95% CI [-45.55, -18.77], p < 0.01), although fluoroscopy time increased (MD: 7.48 with 95% CI [4.29, 10.68], p < 0.01) compared to HPSD ablation (45-90 W). Safety profiles were comparable, but pericarditis rates were significantly lower with PFA versus HPSD (45-50 W) (p = 0.003) and vHPSD (70-90 W) (p = 0.019). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a 28% lower risk of atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence with PFA compared to HPSD ablation (45-90 W) (HR: 0.72, 95% CI [0.57, 0.91], p = 0.006) over an 18-month follow-up.
conclusionPFA and HPSD ablation (45-90 W) are effective and safe for AF ablation. PFA was significantly associated with lower atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence, shorter procedural duration, reduced left atrial dwell time, increased fluoroscopy time, and comparable safety, with lower rates of pericarditis compared to HPSD ablation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.