Pulsed Field Ablation versus Thermal Ablation for Pulmonary Vein Isolation: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Clicks: 3
ID: 313856
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
0.6
/100
3 views
2 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
EmergingRanked #36 of 88 articles by views in EP Europace
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Pulsed field ablation (PFA) has recently emerged as a promising alternative to conventional energy sources (ES) for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. However, comparative data between PFA and other ES-such as radiofrequency (RFA), cryoballoon (CBA), and laser balloon ablation (LBA)-remain limited.This network meta-analysis (CRD420251054760) aimed to compare outcomes of PFA versus thermal ES for AF ablation. METHODS: A systematic network metanalysis using PubMed, Cochrane and EMBASE from inception to March 2026 was performed. Randomized controlled trials comparing different ES in first-attempt pulmonary vein isolation were included. Data extraction was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. The primary outcome was the recurrence of any sustained atrial tachyarrhythmia (ATA) at 12-month follow-up. Safety and efficiency outcomes were also compared among groups. RESULTS: We included 18 studies, encompassing 4,162 patients. Compared to PFA, thermal ablation technologies showed a higher risk of ATA recurrence at 12-month follow-up (RFA: RR of 1.48 (95% CI 1.10-2.00); CBA: 1.43 (95% CI 1.07-1.92); LBA: RR 1.29 (CI 95% 0.84; 1.98)). PFA exhibited lowest procedural time among transcatheter ES, whereas RFA displayed a significantly lower fluoroscopy time. No significant differences were recorded for major periprocedural complications. A subgroup analysis restricted to studies involving only paroxysmal AF patients, as well as those employing contemporary technologies, yielded consistent findings. CONCLUSIONS: The present data indicate that, in patients undergoing a first transcatheter AF ablation, PFA may be associated with favourable efficacy and procedural efficiency compared with traditional thermal technologies, while showing a broadly comparable safety profile.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W7160922126
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Alessia Chiara Latini, Mattia Penna, Andrea Saglietto, Federico Landra, Mauro Chiarito, Alessandro Villaschi, Gaia Filiberti, Sebastiano Carli, Stefano Valcher, Chiara Valeriano, Francesco Amata, Aurora Sanniti, Cristina Panico, Stefano Figliozzi, Massimo Tritto, G Condorelli, Diego Penela |
| Journal | EP Europace |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1093/europace/euag112
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.