Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract Aims Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) represents the gold standard in the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) and the use of single-shot techniques, such as cryoballoon ablation (CBA) and pulsed field ablation (PFA) using a pentaspline catheter, has gained prominence. Recent studies hypothesize that PFA might be superior to CBA, although procedural efficacy and safety data are inconsistent. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare both energy sources for the treatment of AF. Methods and results A structured systematic database search and meta-analysis were performed on studies investigating outcomes, periprocedural complications, and/or procedural parameters of AF patients treated by either CBA or PFA. Eleven studies reporting data from 3805 patients were included. Pulmonary vein isolation by PFA was associated with a significantly lower recurrence of atrial fibrillation/atrial tachycardia odds ratio (OR) = 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.54–0.98, I2 = 20% and fewer periprocedural complications (OR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.40–0.96, I2 = 6%) compared to CBA. The lower complication rate following PFA was mainly driven by fewer phrenic nerve injuries (OR = 0.19, 95% CI = 0.08–0.43, I2 = 0%). However, there were more cases of cardiac tamponades after PFA (OR = 2.56, 95% CI = 1.01–6.49, I2 = 0%). Additionally, using PFA for PVI was associated with shorter total procedure times mean difference (MD) = −9.68, 95% CI = −14.92 to −4.43 min, I2 = 92% and lower radiation exposure (MD = −148.07, 95% CI = −276.50 to −19.64 µGy·mI2 = 7%). Conclusion Our results suggest that PFA for PVI, compared to CBA, enables shorter procedure times with lower arrhythmia recurrence and a reduced risk of periprocedural complications. Randomized controlled trials need to confirm our findings.
Rudolph et al. (Wed,) studied this question.