Key result
High-frequency jet ventilation during PFA is linked to similar 1-year atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence as standard ventilation.
Why the study?
Although high-frequency jet ventilation improves catheter stability and outcomes with conventional energy sources during AF ablation, its utility with pulsed field ablation is unclear.
Does high-frequency jet ventilation improve atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence or procedural outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing pulsed field ablation compared to standard ventilation?
Cohort (n=512)
Does high-frequency jet ventilation improve atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence or procedural outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing pulsed field ablation compared to standard ventilation?
Absolute Event Rate: 26% vs 23%
p-value: p=0.43
The use of high-frequency jet ventilation during pulsed field ablation for atrial fibrillation does not significantly improve arrhythmic outcomes, procedure times, or complication rates compared to standard ventilation.
Using high-frequency jet ventilation (HFJV) to improve catheter stability with conventional energy sources during atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation is associated with higher ablation success and improved arrhythmic outcomes. The utility of HFJV with pulsed field ablation (PFA) for AF is unclear. We investigated the utility of HFJV vs. standard ventilation in PFA for AF. We studied consecutive cases of patients with AF undergoing PFA between 5/6/24 to 10/10/24. Procedural data collected included total procedure time and major periprocedural complications. Clinical data collected included atrial tachyarrhythmia (ATA) recurrence, stroke, and major bleeding at one-year follow-up. Outcomes were compared in cases where HFJV was used vs. standard ventilation. A total of 512 patients were included in this study (307 standard ventilation, 205 HFJV). There was no difference in ATA recurrence by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis between standard ventilation and HFJV groups (log rank test p = 0.59). When comparing standard ventilation vs. HFJV groups, there was no difference in ATA recurrence at one year (23% vs. 26%; p = 0.43), AF burden on continuous monitoring (9 ± 5% vs. 8 ± 24%; p = 0.85), total procedure time (114 ± 38 vs. 115 ± 33 min; p = 0.78), or major periprocedural complications (3% vs. 2%; p = 0.64). There was no difference in arrhythmic outcomes when patients were stratified by AF type and whether patients presented for first-time or redo ablation. Using HFJV in PFA for AF produces similar sinus rhythm maintenance overall and when stratified by AF type without affecting procedure times or complication rate. A total of 512 patients were included in the study, of which 307 underwent pulsed field ablation with standard ventilation and 205 with high-frequency jet ventilation. There was no difference in atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence, atrial fibrillation burden, total procedure time, major periprocedural complications, stroke, or major bleeding between either ventilation strategies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Junarta et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Atrial fibrillation (n=512). High-frequency jet ventilation vs. Standard ventilation was evaluated on Atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence at one year (p=0.43). High-frequency jet ventilation during pulsed field ablation for atrial fibrillation resulted in similar 1-year atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence compared to standard ventilation (26% vs 23%; p=0.43).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: