Key result
CARTO 3 linked to ~61% lower 30-day AF readmissions versus EnSite.
Why the study?
Three-dimensional electroanatomical mapping systems are used with nonintegrated pulsed field ablation catheters for AF, but outcomes comparing CARTO 3 and EnSite systems had not been evaluated.
Does pulsed field ablation using the CARTO 3 mapping system reduce 30-day arrhythmia-related readmissions and ER visits compared to the EnSite system in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Does pulsed field ablation using the CARTO 3 mapping system reduce 30-day arrhythmia-related readmissions and ER visits compared to the EnSite system in patients with atrial fibrillation?
In patients undergoing pulsed field ablation for atrial fibrillation, the use of the CARTO 3 mapping system was associated with lower 30-day arrhythmia-related readmissions and ER visits compared to the EnSite system.
CARTO 3 mapping was associated with fewer early readmissions after PFA; leaves open need for randomized confirmation before practice change.
Aim: Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a minimally thermal alternative to traditional thermal catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF), with comparable efficacy and minimal risk of collateral tissue injury. Three-dimensional (3D) electroanatomical mapping systems have been adopted with nonintegrated PFA catheters to improve precision and procedural efficiency. This study compared arrhythmia-related hospital readmissions and procedure-related complications among patients with AF treated with PFA, using either the CARTO™ 3 or EnSite™ electroanatomical mapping system. Materials & methods: Patients who underwent PFA for AF using nonintegrated pulsed field catheters with either CARTO 3 or EnSite were identified from the 2023–2024 Premier Healthcare Database (PHD). The primary outcome was 30-day inpatient readmission and emergency room (ER) visit for AF/atrial flutter (AFL)/atrial tachycardia following the index PFA procedure. Secondary outcomes included 30-day cardiovascular-related readmissions and procedure-related complications. Cohorts were balanced using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Descriptive analyses and a weighted Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) model were used to assess differences in outcomes between groups. Results: A total of 2894 patients were treated using CARTO 3 and 2015 using EnSite. After weighting, patient and hospital characteristics were well balanced across cohorts. The CARTO 3 group was significantly less likely to experience AF/AFL/atrial tachycardia-related readmissions (0.3% vs 0.9%, chi-square p = 0.023; odds ratio [OR], 0.39; 95% CI, 0.17–0.90, GEE p = 0.028) and a composite outcome of AF/AFL/atrial tachycardia-related inpatient readmission or ER visits (0.5% vs 1.1%, chi-square p = 0.020; OR: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.21–0.89, GEE p = 0.023) within 30 days of PFA procedure than the EnSite group. No differences were observed in cardiovascular-related readmission or complications. Conclusion: In this retrospective, real-world study, patients with AF who underwent PFA using CARTO 3 had lower 30-day AF/AFL/atrial tachycardia-related readmissions rates than those treated with EnSite suggesting that choice of mapping system may influence early AF outcomes and could translate into reduced downstream hospitalizations and resource use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Costea et al. (2026) studied this question. Patients with atrial fibrillation treated with CARTO 3 had significantly lower 30-day AF-related readmission rates (0.3% vs 0.9%; OR 0.39) compared to those using EnSite.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: