SynthesisArquivos brasileiros de cardiologia2025
Pulsed Field Ablation Versus Very High-Power Short-Duration Radiofrequency Ablation in Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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 for Atrial Fibrillation: Early Experience in Brazil.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2026Article
- Atrial Fibrillation Ablation: Are We Still Looking for the Best Shot?Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedErratum.2026
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is a cornerstone treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF). Pulsed-field ablation (PFA) and very high-power short-duration (vHPSD) radiofrequency (RF) ablation are emerging technologies, but their comparative efficacy and safety remain unclear.
objectivesTo assess the efficacy and safety of PFA compared to vHPSD RF ablation for AF.
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases identified studies comparing PFA and vHPSD ablation. Outcomes included PVI success, skin-to-skin procedure time, fluoroscopy time, freedom from atrial arrhythmias, and complications such as cardiac tamponade, stroke, and vascular access events. Continuous outcomes were analyzed using mean differences (MD), while binary outcomes were assessed with risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). A significance threshold of p < 0.05 was considered for statistical analyses. This study is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024619301).
resultsFour observational studies with 605 patients were included, of whom 315 (52%) underwent PFA. PFA and vHPSD achieved similar PVI success (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.99-1.01; p = 1). PFA reduced procedure time (MD -30.07 min; 95% CI -31.41 to -28.74; p<0.01) but increased fluoroscopy time (MD 6.87 min; 95% CI 3.66-10.08; p<0.01). Freedom from atrial arrhythmias was comparable (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.94-1.14; p=0.5). Complication rates, including cardiac tamponade, stroke, and vascular access issues, showed no significant differences between groups.
conclusionPFA significantly shortens procedure time but requires longer fluoroscopy compared to vHPSD. Both techniques exhibit comparable efficacy for PVI and arrhythmia freedom, with similar safety profiles.
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.