ArticleEuropace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology2025
Haemolysis and myocardial and neural injury after monopolar pulsed field ablation using a novel lattice-tip catheter to treat atrial fibrillation.
Article 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, 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.
- Pulsed field ablation for the interventional treatment of atrial fibrillation: a scientific statement of the European Heart Rhythm Association of the European Society of Cardiology, the Heart Rhythm Society, the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society, and the Canadian Heart Rhythm Society.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 · 2026Guideline
- PulseSelect vs FARAPULSE pulsed field ablation: Comparative analysis of myocardial, neural-injury and hemolysis biomarkers and short-term outcomes.International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature · 2026Article
- Glia of the heart's nervous system.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThe aim of this study was to assess the risk of haemolysis and the extent of myocardial and neural injury after monopolar, monophasic pulsed field ablation (PFA) using a lattice-tip catheter in comparison to single-shot PF ablation platforms employing bipolar, biphasic waveforms. METHODS AND
resultsThis prospective study included consecutive patients undergoing PFA for atrial fibrillation (AF) using the Affera™ mapping and ablation system (n = 40). Biomarkers for haemolysis (haptoglobin, lactate dehydrogenase, bilirubin), myocardial injury [high-sensitive troponin T, creatine kinase (CK), creatine kinase MB (CK-MB)], neurocardiac injury (S100), and renal function (creatinine) were assessed pre- and within 24 h post-ablation. A subgroup analysis of first-time pulmonary vein isolation-only procedures compared biomarker changes across Affera™, Farapulse™ (PFA-F), and PulseSelect™ (PFA-P). Post-procedural haemolysis occurred across all PFA platforms. The decrease in Δhaptoglobin was most pronounced in PFA-F [AfferaTM: (-) 13.8 ± 18.5 vs. PFA-P: (-) 36.8 ± 35.9 vs. PFA-F: (-) 60.7 ± 26.3 mg/dL, P = <0.001], without haemolysis-related complications. AfferaTM shows a trend towards a higher increase in myocardial injury markers (Δtroponin, 1537 [580] vs. 970 [1023] vs. 1051 [592] pg/mL, P = 0.180; ΔCK, 232 [168] vs. 153 [132] vs. 102 [144] U/L, P = 0.006; ΔCK-MB, 28.5 [15.3] vs. 14.6 [12.4] vs. 13.6 [10.5] U/L, P = 0.055, for Affera TM, PFA-P, and PFA-F, respectively). After ablation, S100 increased in PFA-P and PFA-F, but not in AfferaTM.
conclusionPost-procedural haemolysis after PFA for AF treatment is common and occurs across all PFA platforms. Pulsed field ablation using AfferaTM results in more myocardial injury than bipolar PFA systems with no indication of neural damage.
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.