Key result
Pentaspline PFA shows similar 12-month freedom from AF/AT recurrence compared to RFA.
Why the study?
While PFA is noninferior to RFA for initial AF treatment, its comparative efficacy and safety in patients with AF recurrence following an initial ablation procedure remain unknown.
Does pulsed field ablation using a pentaspline catheter improve freedom from AF/AT recurrence compared to radiofrequency ablation in patients with recurrent atrial fibrillation following an initial ablation?
Cohort (n=223)
Yes
Does pulsed field ablation using a pentaspline catheter improve freedom from AF/AT recurrence compared to radiofrequency ablation in patients with recurrent atrial fibrillation following an initial ablation?
Pulsed field ablation using a pentaspline catheter demonstrates comparable effectiveness and safety to radiofrequency ablation for patients experiencing atrial fibrillation recurrence after an initial ablation.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Should not change redo ablation practice; leaves open whether randomized trials confirm equivalence.
Abstract Background Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a non-thermal energy modality for catheter ablation. While recent studies have demonstrated that PFA is noninferior to radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for the initial treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF), its comparative efficacy and safety in patients who had AF recurrence following the initial ablation procedure remain unknown. Methods From July 1, 2024 to September 30, 2024, 223 consecutive patients who had AF recurrence following the initial ablation procedure were prospectively enrolled from two participating centers and underwent either PFA using the pentaspline catheter (PFA group, n=77) or RFA (RFA group, n=146) based on clinical judgment. The effectiveness endpoint was freedom from AF/atrial tachycardia (AT) recurrence at 12 months. Results At 12 months, there was no significant difference in the rate of freedom from AF/AT recurrence between the PFA and RFA groups (71.4% vs 67.8%; log-rank P=0.514; HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52-1.38). Similarly, the incidence of safety endpoints did not differ significantly between the two groups (2.6% vs. 3.4%; P=0.947). Conclusion In patients who had AF recurrence following the initial ablation procedure, PFA using a pentaspline catheter demonstrated comparable effectiveness and safety to RFA, with similar rates of freedom from AF/AT recurrence and adverse events at 12 months.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cheng et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Atrial fibrillation recurrence (n=223). Pulsed field ablation (PFA) using the pentaspline catheter vs. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) was evaluated on Freedom from AF/atrial tachycardia (AT) recurrence at 12 months (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.52-1.38, p=0.514). Pulsed field ablation using a pentaspline catheter showed similar freedom from AF/AT recurrence at 12 months compared to radiofrequency ablation (71.4% vs 67.8%; HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.52-1.38; P=0.514).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: