Pulmonary vein isolation using pulsed field ablation versus high-power-short-duration radiofrequency ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: efficacy, safety, and long-term follow-up

Abstract Background Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a novel, nonthermal, cardiac tissue selective ablation modality. To date, radio-frequency (RF) guided high-power-short-duration (HPSD) ablation represents the gold standard for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). This study investigated the efficacy of PFA-PVI versus HPSD-PVI in terms of single-procedure arrhythmia-free outcome and safety. Methods Consecutive, paroxysmal AF patients who underwent PVI using PFA or HPSD were enrolled. In group PFA, PVI was performed using a 31/35-mm pentaspline PFA catheter. The ablation procedure in group HPSD was performed with HPSD-RF energy (45 watts), using Ablation Index (AI) and the CLOSE protocol. The CLOSE protocol combines AI and ≤6 mm interlesion distance using a 4-mm surround flow catheter. Results A total of 420 patients (group PFA: 211; group HPSD: 209) were included (55% men; age 67 ± 10 years). There was no difference between both groups with regard to age, gender and CHA2DS2-VASc-Score. Complete isolation of all PVs was achieved in 100% of patients. Procedure time was significantly shorter in group PFA (74 ± 41 min vs. 127 ± 34 min; p 0.001); fluoroscopy time and dose area product were significantly longer in group PFA (18 ± 7 min vs. 4 ± 3 min; p 0.01 and 555 ± 460 uGym2 vs. 213 ± 273 uGym2; p 0.01). Overall procedural complications were 1,4% in group PFA and 5,2 % in group HPSD (p 0.01), driven by a higher tamponade rate in group HPSD. During a mean follow-up of 12 months after a single procedure, 170 (81%) patients of group PFA were free of arrhythmia recurrence versus 160 (76%) patients in group HPSD (p = 0.798) (Figure 1). Conclusions PVI using PFA compared to PVI using HPSD shows a similar acute efficacy but a significantly reduced complication rate and a shorter procedure time. One-year clinical success rates are favorable, but not different between groups.Figure 1