Key result
Repeating pulsed-field applications produces ~33% deeper lesions with less variation than single RF.
Why the study?
Combining radiofrequency and pulsed-field applications or repeating pulsed-field applications reportedly augments lesion size and depth, but their comparative effects using the lattice-tip catheter were unknown.
Does repeating pulsed-field applications maximize lesion depth and minimize variability compared to single or mixed PF/RF applications in a swine model?
Does repeating pulsed-field applications maximize lesion depth and minimize variability compared to single or mixed PF/RF applications in a swine model?
Repeating pulsed-field applications twice with a lattice-tip catheter optimizes lesion depth and consistency compared to single or mixed PF/RF strategies in a preclinical model.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No depth benefit from repeated or combined PF/RF with lattice-tip catheters; leaves open optimal parameters for clinical use.
BACKGROUND: Combining radiofrequency (RF) and pulsed-field (PF) applications in various combinations, or repeating PF applications, has been reported to augment lesion size and depth. We compared lesion dimensions using single, double, and combined applications of PF and RF for the large-footprint lattice-tip catheter. METHODS: Sixteen swine underwent endocardial ablation using the lattice-tip catheter. Four-second PF and 5-second, saline-irrigated, temperature-controlled RF energy were delivered in the ventricles using 1 of 5 different settings: single applications of PF (PF 1 -only), single RF (RF 1 -only), and 3 sequential settings: PF 1 -PF 2 (2 consecutive PF applications at the same location), PF 1 -RF 1 (PF followed by RF), and RF 1 -PF 1 (RF followed by PF). RESULTS: A total of 102 lesions (69 left and 33 right ventricles) were analyzed. Mean lesion depths were 6.8±0.3 mm (PF 1 -PF 2 ), 6.6±0.3 mm (RF 1 -PF 1 ), 5.7±0.2 mm (PF 1 -only), 5.0±0.3 mm (PF 1 -RF 1 ), and 5.1±0.2 mm (RF 1 -only). Mean lesion depths did not differ significantly between PF 1 -PF 2 and either PF 1 -only or RF 1 -PF 1 ( P =0.114 and P =0.986, respectively). However, the variability in depth was significantly smaller in the PF 1 -PF 2 group compared with both PF 1 -only and RF 1 -PF 1 ( P =0.017 and P =0.013, respectively). Only the PF 1 -PF 2 setting produced significantly deeper lesions compared with the RF 1 -only and PF 1 -RF 1 settings ( P =0.015 and P =0.012, respectively). RF lesions exhibited a prominent dark hemorrhagic core and a thin pale rim; PF lesions appeared uniformly pale; and combination lesions demonstrated a central dark zone surrounded by a pale rim of variable thickness. CONCLUSIONS: Repeating PF twice created the optimal combination of greatest depth and least variation compared with all other strategies. RF 1 -PF 1 resulted in similar depth, but required toggling between settings and risked thermal adverse events.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Watanabe et al. (2026) studied Endocardial ablation (preclinical) (n=16). Sequential pulsed-field applications (PF1-PF2) vs. Single RF, single PF, or mixed PF/RF applications was evaluated on Mean lesion depth (p=0.015). Repeating pulsed-field applications twice produced the deepest lesions (6.8±0.3 mm) with the least variation compared to single RF (5.1±0.2 mm, P=0.015) or other ablation strategies.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: