Key result
PFA shows similar 3-month AF recurrence compared to HPSD ablation.
Why the study?
PVI is a cornerstone of rhythm control in symptomatic AF, and new ablation technologies including PFA and HPSD with the QDOT catheter have recently been introduced.
Does pulse field ablation reduce clinical or electrocardiographic AF recurrence compared to high-power short-duration radiofrequency ablation in symptomatic atrial fibrillation patients?
Observational (n=110)
No
Does pulse field ablation reduce clinical or electrocardiographic AF recurrence compared to high-power short-duration radiofrequency ablation in symptomatic atrial fibrillation patients?
Absolute Event Rate: 12.1% vs 5.8%
p-value: p=0.127
Pulse field ablation and high-power short-duration radiofrequency ablation are both feasible and safe for pulmonary vein isolation, with similar short-term efficacy.
Similar short-term AF recurrence supports feasibility of both; leaves open superiority in randomized trials.
Background Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is one of the cornerstones of rhythm-control therapy for symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. The new ablation technologies of pulse field ablation (PFA) and high-power short-duration radiofrequency ablation (HPSD) with the new QDOT® catheter have been recently introduced in the EP lab. Aims To evaluate and compare the efficacy, and safety of single-shot PFA and HPSDRA for PVI in AF symptomatic patients. Methods Single centre, retrospective study of consecutive patients undergoing PVI with PFA or HPSD between May-December 2022. Data on demographic, procedural and clinical/ electrocardiographic recurrence (assessed after a 3-months blanking period) were analysed. Comparative analysis between both techniques was performed. Results One hundred and ten consecutive patients were included (63 ± 11 years, 75% men), with a mean CHA2DS2-VASc score of 2±1 points, median LVEF of 61% [IQR 57-62%] and a median left atrial volume index (by CT scan) of 56 mL/m2 [IQR 51-67 mL/m2]. 55% patients presented paroxysmal-AF and 19 patients (17%) performed a redo ablation. 47% (n=52) patients performed HPSD and 53% (n=58) PFA (all with CARTO®3D system v.7 and high-density mapping). In the HPSD: median RF ablation time was 792 sec [IQR 614-919sec], while in PFA was 90 sec [IQR 30-138 sec]. Median time of catheter inside the LA for PFA was 18 min [IQR 2-33 min]. Comparing HPSD and PFA (Fig 1): median procedure time was similar (91 min [IQR 71-107 min] vs 89 min [IQR 66-111 min], p=0.261), while median fluoroscopy time was lower with HPSD (5.4 min [IQR 3.1-6.8 min] vs 13.2 min [IQR 10.3-15.6 min], p<0.001); posterior wall isolation (PWI) was performed in 5 (10%) HPSD vs 21 (37%) PFA patients (p<0.001). All PFA patients undergoing PWI had first pass isolation, while only 40% of HPSD had first pass isolation. When performed PVI only, PFA presents a lower median procedure time than HPSD (76 min [IQR 62-93 min] vs 97 min [IQR 69-135 min], p=0.048). There was only one major complication, a cardiac tamponade with PFA, treated with pericardiocentesis. At 3 months of follow-up, 17% (n=10) patients had clinical or electrocardiographic AF recurrence: 7 PFA patients and 3 HPSD patients (p=0.127). Conclusions PFA and HPSD were both feasible and safe. When undergoing PVI-only, procedure time was lower with PFA. In patients undergoing PWI, PFA achieved higher first pass isolation. Although still in its early real-world evaluation, both techniques seem to be efficient, providing low AF recurrence during follow-up.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Santos et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Symptomatic atrial fibrillation (n=110). Pulse field ablation (PFA) vs. High-power short-duration radiofrequency ablation (HPSD) was evaluated on Clinical or electrocardiographic AF recurrence (p=0.127). Pulse field ablation compared to high-power short-duration radiofrequency ablation for pulmonary vein isolation resulted in similar 3-month AF recurrence rates (12.1% vs 5.8%, p=0.127).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: