SynthesisEuropace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology2026
Ventricular pulsed field ablation from bench to bedside: preclinical and clinical evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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, 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsEvidence supporting the use of pulsed field ablation (PFA) for ventricular arrhythmia (VA) ablation remains limited and heterogeneous, and the relationship between preclinical lesion characteristics and clinical outcomes is incompletely defined. We sought to systematically summarize preclinical lesion metrics and clinical outcomes of ventricular PFA. METHODS AND
resultsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of preclinical and clinical studies of ventricular PFA. Preclinical studies reporting lesion depth or transmurality and clinical studies detailing procedural efficacy and safety were included. Random-effects models were used to pool lesion characteristics and clinical outcomes. Seventy-five studies were included (33 preclinical, 43 clinical; 355 patients). In preclinical models, mean lesion depth was 5.96 mm(95%CI, 5.07-6.84) in healthy endocardium and 5.19 mm (95%CI, 2.58-7.79) in healthy epicardium. Notably, lesion depth was quantitatively similar in models of scarred myocardium (5.96 mm; 95%CI, 5.39-6.53). Lesion transmurality was variable in healthy tissues (32%; 95%CI, 15-52%) but higher within scar (53%; 95%CI, 36-70%). Consistently, lesion depth was similar between PFA and RF in healthy myocardium, but greater with PFA in scarred models (within-study mean depth difference, 2.09 mm; 95%CI, 0.84-3.34). Greater contact force, repeated applications, and higher energy/duration settings were associated with increased lesion depth. Clinically, acute success was high for both premature ventricular complexes (PVCs,90%; 95%CI, 83-96%) and ventricular tachycardia (VT;92%; 95%CI, 87-96%) in studies with ≥3patients. Over a mean follow-up of approximately 5months, recurrence rates were 19% (95%CI, 12-28%) for PVCs and 21% (95%CI, 10-35%) for VT. The overall complication rate was 10% (95%CI, 5-17%) in studies with ≥3patients, with coronary artery spasm and conduction disturbances representing the most frequent adverse events.
conclusionVentricular PFA demonstrates high acute efficacy and encouraging mid-term outcomes, supported by preclinical evidence of favourable lesion penetration within scarred myocardium. Safety considerations-particularly coronary and conduction system effects-and the heterogeneity of preclinical evidence highlight the need for further investigation.
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.