Key result
High-power RF ablation is linked to ~24% shorter application time and less pain in AF.
Why the study?
There has been no consensus on optimal radiofrequency ablation power for AF, and patients under local anesthesia and fentanyl analgesia may experience pain during the procedure.
Does high-power radiofrequency ablation (50 W) reduce treatment time and postoperative pain compared to conventional power (35 W) in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation?
Observational (n=60)
No
Does high-power radiofrequency ablation (50 W) reduce treatment time and postoperative pain compared to conventional power (35 W) in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation?
Absolute Event Rate: 46.6% vs 61%
p-value: p=<0.001
High-power (50 W) radiofrequency ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation significantly reduces procedural time and early postoperative pain compared to conventional (35 W) power ablation.
High-power ablation may shorten times and reduce pain in paroxysmal AF; hypothesis-generating, requires randomized confirmation before practice change.
BACKGROUND: There has been no consensus on what power of radiofrequency energy can be used to produce the best surgical results in patients with atrial fibrillation. In addition, patients undergoing local anesthesia and fentanyl analgesia may experience pain when radiofrequency ablation is performed. This study investigated the effect of different power radiofrequency ablations in treatment and postoperative pain in patients with atrial fibrillation. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed with 60 patients who underwent radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation between January and June 2023. Patients were divided into 2 groups according to the power of the radiofrequency ablation catheter used, with 30 patients in the conventional power group (35 W) and 30 patients in the high-power group (50 W). The cardiac electrophysiological indexes and postoperative pain of the 2 groups were compared. RESULTS: Most of the procedural key parameters between the 2 groups had no significant differences. However, the total application time during radiofrequency ablation and pulmonary vein isolation time in the high-power group were significantly shorter than those in the conventional power group (p < 0.001). Patients in the high-power group reported significantly less pain than those in the conventional power group in the immediate postoperative period and the late postoperative period (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: High-power radiofrequency ablation showed a shorter treatment time, and could reduce postoperative pain compared to conventional power ablation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2024) conducted an observational in Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (n=60). High-power radiofrequency ablation vs. Conventional power radiofrequency ablation (35 W) was evaluated on Total application time (minutes) (p=<0.001). High-power radiofrequency ablation (50 W) significantly reduced total application time and immediate postoperative pain compared to conventional power (35 W) in patients with atrial fibrillation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: