SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2026
Efficacy and safety of pulsed field ablation and very high-power short-duration ablation for atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pulsed field ablation (PFA) and very high power short duration ablation (vHPSD) are new techniques for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation that have been rapidly developed in recent years. However, there are still limited high-quality studies on the clinical efficacy and safety of the two methods in the treatment of atrial fibrillation. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Wanfang, CNKI and other Chinese and English databases to collect relevant studies on the efficacy and safety of PFA vs. vHPSD in the treatment of AF published up to May 11, 2026. Two researchers independently completed literature screening and data extraction. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and ROBINS-I tool to evaluate the study quality and risk of bias, respectively. Pooled effect sizes were calculated using random-effects models, and meta-regression and sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore heterogeneity and publication bias. Results: A total of 11 observational studies involving 1,476 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference in the recurrence rate of atrial fibrillation between the PFA group and the vHPSD group during the follow-up period ( Conclusions: Based on the existing research evidence, this study indicates that there is no significant difference in the efficacy and safety of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation between pulsed field ablation (PFA) and very high power short duration ablation (vHPSD). The procedure time of the PFA group is shorter than that of the vHPSD group, and the fluoroscopy time is longer than that of the vHPSD group. In view of the small sample size and short follow-up time, more randomized controlled trials with large sample size and long-term follow-up are still needed to further verify the above conclusions. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261322321, PROSPERO (Registration ID: CRD420261322321).
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.