Pulsed-field ablation yielded similar 365-day recurrence-free survival compared to radiofrequency ablation for repeat atrial fibrillation catheter ablation (61% vs 69%, P=0.082).
Cohort (n=185)
No
Does pulsed-field ablation improve procedural characteristics, safety, and recurrence-free survival compared to radiofrequency ablation in patients undergoing repeat catheter ablation for recurrent atrial fibrillation?
Pulsed-field ablation demonstrates similar procedural characteristics, safety, and arrhythmia-free survival compared to radiofrequency ablation for repeat catheter ablation in patients with recurrent atrial fibrillation.
Tasa de eventos absoluta: 61% vs 69%
valor p: p=0.082
Background Pulsed-field ablation (PFA) is noninferior compared with thermal energy sources such as radiofrequency ablation (RFA) or cryoballoon ablation for de novo pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). However, its potential value for repeat catheter ablation (CA) after unsuccessful thermal PVI has not been assessed. Objective This study aimed to compare the procedural characteristics, safety, and efficacy between PFA and RFA in patients undergoing repeat CA after previous thermal PVI. Methods Patients with recurrent atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing repeat CA at a tertiary referral center were prospectively enrolled. All redo procedures were guided by a 3-dimensional electroanatomic mapping system and performed using either PFA or RFA. Results A total of 185 patients underwent repeat CA for AF (median age 68 years 60–74, 31% female, 53% paroxysmal AF, and 47% persistent AF). PFA was used in 71 patients (38%), whereas RFA was used in 114 patients (62%). The median procedure time was similar between the PFA and RFA groups (61 minutes 50–71 vs 56 minutes 45–82 P = .956), whereas fluoroscopic time was longer in the PFA group (8 minutes 6–12 vs 4 minutes 2–8, P Plog-rank = .082). Posterior wall isolation was more commonly performed in the PFA group (72% vs12%). Conclusion In patients undergoing repeat CA after thermal PVI, PFA resulted in similar procedural characteristics, safety, and arrythmia-free survival compared with RFA.
Isenegger et al. (Tue,) realizaron una cohorte en fibrilación auricular recurrente (n=185). Se evaluó la ablación por campo pulsado (PFA) frente a la ablación por radiofrecuencia (RFA) en la supervivencia libre de recurrencias (p=0.082). La ablación por campo pulsado presentó una supervivencia libre de recurrencias a 365 días similar a la de la ablación por radiofrecuencia para la ablación del catéter de fibrilación auricular repetida (61% frente a 69%, P=0.082).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: