Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42677235›Full record

ReviewJournal of arrhythmia2026

Evaluation of Hemolysis Risk, Renal Function, and Safety Among Two Pulsed Field Ablation Systems: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Abdalrahman Al-Slaimieh, Ibrahim Ghayada, Rand Al-Huneidy, Mohammad Shahin, Khaled Abukhalaf, Waleed Alomari, Khaled Marwa, Saeed Abdel Kamel, Yahya Almazaraa, Mohammad Hajjiri and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of arrhythmia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Abdalrahman Al-SlaimiehDepartment of Electrophysiology Abdali Medical Center Amman Jordan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-8165-6641
Ibrahim GhayadaDepartment of Cardiology Liverpool Heart and Chest Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Liverpool UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8516-6549
Rand Al-HuneidySchool of Medicine The University of Jordan Amman Jordan.
Mohammad ShahinDepartment of Renal Surgery University Hospital Birmingham Birmingham UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9804-464X
Khaled AbukhalafDepartment of Electrophysiology Abdali Medical Center Amman Jordan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-0394-3449
Waleed AlomariEpsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust Sutton UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6168-2859
Khaled MarwaDepartment of Internal Medicine University Hospitals Dorset NHS Foundation Trust Bournemouth UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0451-778X
Saeed Abdel KamelDepartment of Cardiology Royal Brompton Hospital London UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8351-6501
Yahya AlmazaraaSchool of Medicine The University of Jordan Amman Jordan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7445-4345
Mohammad HajjiriDepartment of Electrophysiology Abdali Medical Center Amman Jordan.
Abdallah Al-AniDivision of Vascular and Interventional Radiology Boston Children's Hospital Boston Massachusetts USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3517-3601

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study investigated the hemolysis risk, renal, and safety outcomes between two pulsed field ablation (PFA) systems. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed using PubMed, Cochrane, and ScienceDirect databases for all studies comparing circular to pentaspline PFA systems. Pooled markers evaluated included procedural characteristics, haptoglobin, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), bilirubin, hemoglobin, and creatinine, with glomerular filtration rate (GFR) and safety markers qualitatively discussed. A total of 11 studies were included, comprising 1517 individuals. While differences in procedural, left atrial dwelling, and fluoroscopy times were statistically insignificant between the two PFA systems, the pentaspline system was significantly associated with lower post-procedural haptoglobin levels (SMD: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.25 to 0.93), higher LDH (SMD: -0.87; 95% CI: -1.49 to -0.253), and higher bilirubin levels (SMD: -0.77; 95% CI: -1.13 to -0.42) compared to circular catheters. No significant differences were observed in total hemoglobin levels (SMD: 0.13; 95% CI: -0.17 to 0.44;

Indexed as

circular catheterhemolysispentaspline catheterpulsed field ablationrenal functionsafety

Identifiers

PMID42677235
PMCPMC13528620

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.