{"type":"rich","version":"1.0","provider_name":"Transistor","provider_url":"https://transistor.fm","author_name":"EP Edge Journal Watch","title":"EP Edge™ Journal Watch (Special Edition): Feb 2026 HRS/EHRA Pulsed Field Ablation (PFA) Scientific Statement — Vote Counts, Safety Signals, and Real-World Workflow","html":"","width":"100%","height":180,"duration":1001,"description":"In this EP Edge™ Journal Watch Special Edition, we unpack the newly released 2026 HRS/EHRA Scientific Statement on Pulsed Field Ablation (PFA) and translate “consensus language” into practical, lab-ready decision-making. This isn’t a surface summary—it’s a critical appraisal of how the statement was built (including the 11-voter model), where the field is truly aligned, and where recommendations may outpace either the evidence base or global clinical reality. final pfa statementYou’ll hear a Consensus Map that separates high-agreement anchors (e.g., access, anticoagulation, sheath discipline) from moderate-consensus workflow preferences (e.g., anesthesia models, ICE use, waiting periods), and the genuinely controversial areas. Then we go deep on what matters most to operators and patients: platform-aware safety and post-market signal management, hemolysis/AKI mitigation tied to lesion burden, phrenic/airway realities, esophageal considerations when lesion sets expand, CIED interaction risk, and why “PFA is a system, not a single technology” should change how you read every recommendation. final pfa statementShow notes: All graphics and full references are available on epedge.substack.com and on LinkedIn in the EP Edge™ Journal Watch newsletter (Issue 12 Special Edition). \nQuestions/suggestions: email: epedgecast@gmail.com","thumbnail_url":"https://img.transistorcdn.com/C7iPWVsHlGRm13syn3X4eXGLcqOXyzcuH5XmVutqgHc/rs:fill:0:0:1/w:400/h:400/q:60/mb:500000/aHR0cHM6Ly9pbWct/dXBsb2FkLXByb2R1/Y3Rpb24udHJhbnNp/c3Rvci5mbS9jMzFi/ZTYxOTI1M2U4NGRj/OGZmZjBhMDFlMjFm/NDQwMC5wbmc.webp","thumbnail_width":300,"thumbnail_height":300}