ArticleFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Pulsed field ablation vs. medical therapy for atrial fibrillation: a propensity score-matched comparison with the JoFib registry.
Article in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a novel, non-thermal method for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). We conducted this study, as part of one of the earliest reports originating from the MENA region, to compare the efficacy of PFA vs. medical therapy alone for the treatment of AF. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in which 62 patients who underwent PFA ablation for AF were compared with a cohort of 62 propensity score-matched patients sourced from the JoFib Registry. Rates of readmission in both arms due to AF recurrence or heart failure exacerbation driven by rapid ventricular response to AF within the period of 1 and 6 months were considered the primary study endpoints. Data were cleaned and analyzed using R 4.5.3. Results: Both cohorts were well matched in terms of age, gender, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, heart failure, left atrial diameter, CHA Conclusions: This early report from the MENA region aligns with the global consensus supporting PFA as a treatment for AF and lays the foundation for future larger studies to investigate PFA in this specific population.
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.