Key result
Pulsed field ablation faces cryoballoon ablation in an upcoming non-inferiority trial for persistent AF.
Why the study?
Evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of pulsed field ablation in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation remains limited.
Does pulsed field ablation improve efficacy and safety compared to cryoballoon ablation in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation?
RCT (n=300)
Open-label
1:1 stratified
Yes
Does pulsed field ablation improve efficacy and safety compared to cryoballoon ablation in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation?
The PEACE trial protocol outlines a study to evaluate whether pulsed field ablation is non-inferior to cryoballoon ablation for the treatment of persistent atrial fibrillation.
PEACE trial will test non-inferiority of pulsed field ablation; extends randomized comparison to persistent atrial fibrillation.
Background: Catheter ablation has become a standard treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF). However, evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of pulsed field ablation (PFA) in patients with persistent AF (PeAF) remains limited. The PEACE trial aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PFA compared to cryoballoon ablation (CBA) in PeAF. Methods: This prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial (NCT07064616, UMIN000057896) will enroll 300 patients with PeAF, randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo either PFA using the PulseSelect™ or cryoballoon ablation (CBA) using the Arctic Front Advance™. The primary efficacy endpoint is atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence within 12 months. The primary safety endpoint is procedure-related complications within 30 days. Secondary outcomes include early recurrence, changes in LA diameter, natriuretic peptide levels, and patient-reported symptoms. Expected results: We hypothesize that PFA will be non-inferior to CBA in terms of efficacy and safety. Conclusions: The PEACE trial will provide essential data regarding the efficacy and safety of PFA compared to CBA in patients with PeAF, potentially informing future clinical practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fukaya et al. (2025) conducted an RCT in Persistent atrial fibrillation (n=300). Pulsed field ablation (PulseSelect) vs. Cryoballoon ablation (Arctic Front Advance) was evaluated on Freedom from any atrial arrhythmia recurrence lasting ≥ 30 s after a 90-day blanking period for 12 months post-ablation. Pulsed field ablation will be evaluated for non-inferiority compared to cryoballoon ablation regarding 12-month freedom from atrial arrhythmia in 300 patients with persistent atrial fibrillation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: