Why the study?
Little is known about the effectiveness of cryoballoon ablation, pulsed field ablation, and radiofrequency ablation in young patients with AF undergoing pulmonary vein isolation.
Does the energy source (pulsed field, cryoballoon, or radiofrequency) affect procedural characteristics, safety, and 1-year recurrence-free survival in patients ≤ 50 years of age undergoing first pulmonary vein isolation for atrial fibrillation?
Does the energy source (pulsed field, cryoballoon, or radiofrequency) affect procedural characteristics, safety, and 1-year recurrence-free survival in patients ≤ 50 years of age undergoing first pulmonary vein isolation for atrial fibrillation?
In young patients (≤50 years) undergoing first pulmonary vein isolation, radiofrequency and pulsed field ablation showed higher 1-year recurrence-free survival compared to cryoballoon ablation, alongside significant differences in procedural times.
May inform energy source selection in young AF ablation; extends limited observational data but leaves open randomized confirmation.
Introduction Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is a well-established treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF), with cryoballoon ablation (Cryo), pulsed field ablation (PFA), and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) as the primary energy sources. However, little is known about the effectiveness of the three ablation modalities in young patients with AF. Purpose This study aimed to compare the procedural characteristics, safety, and effectiveness of PFA, Cryo, and RFA in patients ≤ 50 years of age undergoing PVI. Methods Patients aged ≤ 50 years with AF undergoing their first PVI were consecutively enrolled at two tertiary referral centres and followed for 1 year after the procedure. Patients were divided into three groups according to the energy source used for PVI: Cryo, PFA, and RFA. Results A total of 355 patients (median age 46 [41-49] years, 18% female) were included, of whom 95 patients (27%) underwent Cryo, 102 patients (29%) PFA, and 158 patients (44%) RFA. The median procedure duration was 63 [51 – 81] min for Cryo, 67 [47 – 101] min for PFA, and 94 [75 – 130] min for RFA (p < 0.001). Similarly, left atrial dwell time was 44 [34 – 57] min for Cryo, 43 [27 – 74] min for PFA, and 76 [57 – 97] min for RFA (p < 0.001). Fluoroscopy time was significantly shorter in the RFA group (5 [3 – 8] min), compared to Cryo (14 [11 – 20] min) and PFA (15 [10 – 25] min, p < 0.001). Overall, three complications (0.8%) occurred: one phrenic nerve injury in the Cryo group (1.1%) and two pericardial tamponades in the RFA group (1.3%). The 1-year Kaplan-Meier estimate for recurrence-free survival was 60% in the Cryo group, 69% in the PFA group, and 71% in the RFA group (pLog-rank = 0.021). Conclusion In young patients with AF undergoing PVI, there are energy source-dependent differences in procedural characteristics and effectiveness. These findings warrant further investigation in larger data sets.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liskij et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: