PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
November 16, 2025EP Europace6 citationsOpen Access

Characterization of sedation strategies in real-world use of pulsed field ablation Sub-analysis of the EU-PORIA registry

View Full Paper
KCK. R. Julian ChunKPKarin PlankKNKars Neven

Key Result

Deep sedation during pulsed field ablation for atrial fibrillation resulted in similar 1-year freedom from recurrent arrhythmia compared to general anesthesia (73.8% vs 74.8%; p=0.87).

Study Design

Type

Observational (n=1,233)

Multicenter

Yes

Structured PICO

Does deep sedation maintain efficacy and safety compared to general anesthesia in patients undergoing pulsed field ablation for atrial fibrillation?

P
Population
1,233 patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing pulsed field ablation using the pentaspline PFA catheter, enrolled in the EU-PORIA registry across seven high-volume centers in Europe.
I
Intervention
Deep sedation during pulsed field ablation using the pentaspline PFA catheter (n=983)
C
Comparator
General anesthesia during pulsed field ablation using the pentaspline PFA catheter (n=250)
O
Outcome
Freedom from recurrent atrial fibrillation or atrial tachycardia (>30s) at 1-year follow-uphard clinical

Deep sedation during pulsed field ablation for atrial fibrillation offers shorter procedure and fluoroscopy times with comparable 1-year safety and efficacy to general anesthesia.

Main Result

Absolute Event Rate: 73.8% vs 74.8%

p-value: p=0.87

Abstract

BACKGROUND: With the introduction of pulsed field ablation (PFA) to treat atrial fibrillation (AF), there is interest in studying workflow and sedation strategies to optimize integration into clinical practice. This sub-analysis characterizes early real-world use of general anesthesia versus deep sedation during AF ablation using the pentaspline PFA catheter. METHODS: EU-PORIA is an all-comer AF registry enrolling consecutive patients at seven high-volume centers in Europe. Patients were treated based on institutional standard-of-care. During follow-up, any episode of atrial tachycardia (AT) or AF >30s was considered an arrhythmia recurrence. RESULTS: EU-PORIA enrolled 1233 patients, of which 250 (20%) and 983 (80%) cases were performed using general anesthesia and deep sedation, respectively. Patients treated with general anesthesia were more often male and non-paroxysmal AF. In the general anesthesia group, 72% received pulmonary vein isolation (PVI)-only versus 90% in the deep sedation group (p<0.01), and 3D mapping was used in 60% of general anesthesia and 27% of deep sedation cases (p<0.01). Procedure and fluoroscopy times were shorter with deep sedation (5136-84 vs 7560-90 min; 138-19 vs 1915-26 min; p<0.01). There were no differences in the incidence of serious adverse events. At 1-year follow-up, 74.8% and 73.8% of patients in the general anesthesia and deep sedation groups, respectively, were free from recurrent AF/AT (p=0.87). CONCLUSION: AF ablation using deep sedation with the pentaspline PFA catheter demonstrated a safety and efficacy profile consistent with procedures performed under general anesthesia. This characterization of real-world use warrants further evaluation to understand optimal sedation strategies with PFA technologies.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Chun et al. (2025) conducted an observational in Atrial fibrillation (n=1,233). Deep sedation vs. General anesthesia was evaluated on Freedom from recurrent atrial fibrillation or atrial tachycardia >30s (p=0.87). Deep sedation during pulsed field ablation for atrial fibrillation resulted in similar 1-year freedom from recurrent arrhythmia compared to general anesthesia (73.8% vs 74.8%; p=0.87).

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a10c72a326831f8a2645cf9https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euaf287
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper