EP Edge™ Journal Watch (Special Edition): Feb 2026 HRS/EHRA Pulsed Field Ablation (PFA) Scientific Statement — Vote Counts, Safety Signals, and Real-World Workflow

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 statement You’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 statement Show 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). Questions/suggestions: email: epedgecast@gmail.com