PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
January 23, 2026Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology3 citationsOpen Access

Impact of Pulsed Field Ablation Dosing on Outcome After Pulmonary Vein Isolation Using a Pentaspline Ablation Catheter: A Prospective Comparison of 8 Versus 16 Applications

View Full Paper
KYKatharina Ji‐Mi YangMSMaximilian SpiekerSAStephan Angendohr

Key Result

Pulsed field ablation using 16 applications per pulmonary vein improved freedom from atrial arrhythmia to 73.9% compared to 62.3% with 8 applications (p < 0.05).

Key Points

  • This research investigates the effect of using 16 versus 8 applications of pulsed field ablation in pulmonary vein isolation for atrial fibrillation.
  • Prospective study design with 292 patients diagnosed with atrial fibrillation.
  • Patients assigned to either 8 applications (PFA-8) or 16 applications (PFA-16) of pulsed field ablation per pulmonary vein.
  • Follow-up assessed freedom from atrial arrhythmias at 3 and 12 months using Holter monitoring.
  • Freedom from atrial arrhythmia was 73.9% in the PFA-16 group compared to 62.3% in the PFA-8 group (p < 0.05).
  • In patients with persistent AF, effectiveness was greater in the PFA-16 group (66.1%) compared to PFA-8 (45.3%), p < 0.05.
  • No significant differences in freedom from AA in patients with paroxysmal AF (78.8% PFA-16 vs. 75.7% PFA-8).
  • Serious adverse events were rare, occurring in 2.7% of patients with no group differences.

Structured PICO

Does pentaspline pulsed field ablation using 16 applications per pulmonary vein improve freedom from atrial arrhythmia compared to the standard 8 applications in patients with atrial fibrillation?

P
Population
292 consecutive patients with paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation undergoing pulmonary vein isolation, median age 69, 58% male, single-center (Germany). Excluded: first 50 patients (learning curve), history of PVI, or requiring additional ablation beyond PVI.
I
Intervention
Pentaspline pulsed field ablation (PFA) using 16 applications per pulmonary vein (6x basket configuration, 10x flower configuration)
C
Comparator
Standard pentaspline pulsed field ablation (PFA) using 8 applications per pulmonary vein (4x basket configuration, 4x flower configuration)
O
Outcome
Freedom from atrial arrhythmia (atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, and atrial tachycardia) after a follow-up period of 1 year, assessed by Holter monitoring after 3 and 12 months (following a 90-day blanking period)composite

Increasing pentaspline pulsed field ablation dosing to 16 applications per pulmonary vein significantly improves 1-year freedom from atrial arrhythmia compared to the standard 8 applications, particularly in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation, without increasing serious adverse events.

Limitations

  • Single-center study
  • Non-randomized design
  • Open-label

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a novel, non‐thermal ablation modality to achieve pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). For the pentaspline catheter, eight applications per pulmonary vein (PV) are considered standard, with four in basket configuration and four in flower configuration. The objective of the study is to investigate whether pentaspline PFA using 16 applications per PV is associated with an improved outcome compared with the standard procedure. Methods The prospective study included a total of 292 patients with AF. According to the number of applications per PV, patients were assigned to group PFA‐8 (8 applications per PV; 4x basket configuration, 4x flower configuration; n = 130) or group PFA‐16 (16 applications per PV; 6x basket, 10x flower; n = 162). The primary endpoint was freedom from atrial arrhythmia (AA), i.e. AF, atrial flutter, and atrial tachycardia, after a follow‐up period of 1 year, as assessed by Holter monitoring after 3 and 12 months, respectively. Results Freedom from AA was significantly higher in group PFA‐16 than in group PFA‐8 (73.9% vs. 62.3%; p < 0.05). Subgroup analysis showed greater effectiveness in the PFA‐16 group than in the PFA‐8 group (66.1% vs. 45.3%; p < 0.05) in patients with persistent AF, while freedom from AA was similar in both groups in patients with paroxysmal AF (78.8% in PFA‐16 vs. 75.7% in PFA‐8; p = ns). Serious adverse events were observed in 8 (2.7%) patients, with no differences between the two groups. Conclusion PVI using 16 PFA applications per PV may improve clinical outcome in patients with persistent AF.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Yang et al. (2026) studied this question. Pulsed field ablation using 16 applications per pulmonary vein improved freedom from atrial arrhythmia to 73.9% compared to 62.3% with 8 applications (p < 0.05).

synapsesocial.com/papers/69731047c8125b09b0d20040https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.70266
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Pulsed Field Ablation for Pulmonary Vein Isolation in Atrial Fibrillation2019 · 676 citations
  2. 2A zero‐exchange approach for left atrial access in pulmonary vein isolation with pulsed field ablation2024 · 5 citations
  3. 3Safety of pulsed field ablation in more than 17,000 patients with atrial fibrillation in the MANIFEST-17K study2024 · 468 citations
  4. 4Pulsed Field or Cryoballoon Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation2025 · 201 citations
  5. 5Pulsed Field or Conventional Thermal Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation2023 · 915 citations