August 4, 2025Journal of ArrhythmiaOpen Access

Pulsed‐Field Ablation Versus Radiofrequency Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

IEInês Martins EstevesUniversidade do Porto VPVinicius Bittar de PontesCentro Universitário das Faculdades Metropolitanas Unidas TTThierry Fernando TrevisanCentro Universitário das Faculdades Metropolitanas Unidas

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Systematic review compares efficacy and safety of pulsed-field ablation with radiofrequency ablation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, suggesting similar outcomes.

Key Points

Pulsed-field ablation showed a significantly shorter procedure time compared to radiofrequency ablation by almost 40 minutes.
Fluoroscopy time was significantly longer for pulsed-field ablation, averaging around 10.75 minutes more than radiofrequency ablation.
Results included data from one randomized trial and five observational studies, involving 3163 patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.
Efficacy and safety profiles over one year were comparable between pulsed-field and radiofrequency ablation procedures.

Cite This Study

Esteves et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/689a0f86e6551bb0af8d0b0e https://doi.org/10.1002/joa3.70158

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Implication

Systematic review compares efficacy and safety of pulsed-field ablation with radiofrequency ablation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, suggesting similar outcomes.

Pulsed‐Field Ablation Versus Radiofrequency Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Key Points

Cite This Study

Pulsed‐Field Ablation Versus Radiofrequency Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Key Points

Cite This Study

Also Consider

Also Consider