Pulsed Field vs Conventional Thermal Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation

The ADVENT randomized trial revealed no significant difference in 1-year freedom from atrial arrhythmias (AA) between thermal (radiofrequency/cryoballoon) and pulsed field ablation (PFA). However, recent studies indicate that the postablation AA burden is a better predictor of clinical outcomes than the dichotomous endpoint of 30-second AA recurrence. The goal of this study was to determine: 1) the impact of postablation AA burden on outcomes; and 2) the effect of ablation modality on AA burden. In ADVENT, symptomatic drug-refractory patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation underwent PFA or thermal ablation. Postablation transtelephonic electrocardiogram monitor recordings were collected weekly or for symptoms, and 72-hour Holters were at 6 and 12 months. AA burden was calculated from percentage AA on Holters and transtelephonic electrocardiogram monitors. Quality-of-life assessments were at baseline and 12 months. From 593 randomized patients (299 PFA, 294 thermal), using aggregate PFA/thermal data, an AA burden exceeding 0.1% was associated with a significantly reduced quality of life and an increase in clinical interventions: redo ablation, cardioversion, and hospitalization. There were more patients with residual AA burden <0.1% with PFA than thermal ablation (OR: 1.5; 95% CI: 1.0-2.3; P = 0.04). Evaluation of outcomes by baseline demographics revealed that patients with prior failed class I/III antiarrhythmic drugs had less residual AA burden after PFA compared to thermal ablation (OR: 2.5; 95% CI: 1.4-4.3; P = 0.002); patients receiving only class II/IV antiarrhythmic drugs pre-ablation had no difference in AA burden between ablation groups. Compared with thermal ablation, PFA more often resulted in an AA burden less than the clinically significant threshold of 0.1% burden. (The FARAPULSE ADVENT PIVOTAL Trial PFA System vs SOC Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation [ADVENT]; NCT04612244)