Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40558653›Full record

ReviewJournal of cardiovascular development and disease2025

Biophysics and Clinical Effectiveness of Irreversible Electroporation for Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation.

Anna-Sophie Eberl, Gernot Plank, Martin Manninger, Ursula Rohrer, Laura Stix, Stefan Kurath-Koller, Andreas Zirlik, Daniel Scherr

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of cardiovascular development and disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Safety and effectiveness of the TactiFlex duo system: 6-month results of the FOCALFLEX study.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
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Anna-Sophie EberlDivision of Cardiology, Medical University Graz, 8036 Graz, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-1991-9899
Gernot PlankDepartment of Physics and Biophysics, Medical University Graz, 8036 Graz, Austria.
Martin ManningerDivision of Cardiology, Medical University Graz, 8036 Graz, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-0545-4373
Ursula RohrerDivision of Cardiology, Medical University Graz, 8036 Graz, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-5278-6362
Laura StixDivision of Cardiology, Medical University Graz, 8036 Graz, Austria.
Stefan Kurath-KollerDivision of Pediatric Cardiology, Department of Pediatrics & Adolescence Medicine, Medical University Graz, 8036 Graz, Austria.
Andreas ZirlikDivision of Cardiology, Medical University Graz, 8036 Graz, Austria.
Daniel ScherrDivision of Cardiology, Medical University Graz, 8036 Graz, Austria.ORCID 0000-0001-5868-5493

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Understanding the biophysics of electroporation-the mechanism by which pulsed electric fields achieve tissue ablation-is essential for advancing this emerging technology. In this review, we summarize key publications from past years to provide an overview of current knowledge and future perspectives. We discuss the fundamental principles of PFA at the cellular, physical, and technical levels, along with its potential benefits and limitations. A deeper understanding of these biophysical mechanisms and the parameters required to create durable lesions may contribute to improved clinical outcomes and drive future innovation.

Indexed as

ablationatrial fibrillationbiophysicspulsed electric fieldpulsed field ablation

Identifiers

PMID40558653
PMCPMC12194562

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.