Key result
PFA linked to a ~192% larger total posterior ablation area vs RFB.
Why the study?
It was unknown whether pulsed-field ablation and multielectrode radiofrequency balloon technologies differ in lesion formation and lesion extent during pulmonary vein isolation.
Does pulsed-field ablation increase acute lesion extent and cardiac injury biomarkers compared to multielectrode radiofrequency balloon in patients undergoing pulmonary vein isolation?
Observational (n=60)
No
Does pulsed-field ablation increase acute lesion extent and cardiac injury biomarkers compared to multielectrode radiofrequency balloon in patients undergoing pulmonary vein isolation?
Absolute Event Rate: 20.7% vs 7.1%
p-value: p=<.001
Pulsed-field ablation creates significantly larger acute lesion areas and causes greater troponin release compared to multielectrode radiofrequency balloon ablation during pulmonary vein isolation.
PFA was associated with larger acute posterior lesions and troponin release than RFB; leaves open whether these differences affect durability or safety.
INTRODUCTION: Pulsed-field ablation (PFA) and the multielectrode radiofrequency balloon (RFB) are two novel ablation technologies to perform pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). It is currently unknown whether these technologies differ in lesion formation and lesion extent. We compared the acute lesion extent after PVI induced by PFA and RFB by measuring low-voltage area in high-density maps and the release of biomolecules reflecting cardiac injury. METHODS: PVI was performed with a pentaspline catheter (FARAPULSE) applying PFA or with the compliant multielectrode RFB (HELIOSTAR). Before and after PVI high-density mapping with CARTO 3 was performed. In addition, blood samples were taken before transseptal puncture and after post-PVI remapping and serum concentrations of high-sensitive Troponin I were quantified by immunoassay. RESULTS: Sixty patients undergoing PVI by PFA (n = 28, age 69 ± 12 year, 60% males, 39.3% persistent atrial fibrillation [AF]) or RFB (n = 32, age 65 ± 13 year, 53% males, 21.9% persistent AF) were evaluated. Acute PVI was achieved in all patients in both groups. Mean number of PFA pulses was 34.2 ± 4.5 and mean number RFB applications was 8.5 ± 3 per patient. Total posterior ablation area was significantly larger in PFA (20.7 ± 7.7 cm²) than in RFB (7.1 ± 2.09 cm²; p < .001). Accordingly, posterior ablation area for each PV resulted in larger lesions after PFA versus RFB (LSPV 5.2 ± 2.7 vs. 1.9 ± 0.8 cm², LIPV 5.5 ± 2.3 vs. 1.9 ± 0.8 cm², RSPV 4.7 ± 1.9 vs. 1.6 ± 0.5 cm², RIPV 5.3 ± 2.1 vs. 1.6 ± 0.7 cm,² respectively; p < .001). In a subset of 38 patients, increase of hsTropI was higher after PFA (625 ± 138 pg/mL, n = 28) versus RFB (148 ± 36 pg/mL, n = 10; p = .049) supporting the evidence of larger lesion extent by PFA. CONCLUSION: PFA delivers larger acute lesion areas and higher troponin release upon successful PVI than multielectrode RFB-based PVI in this single-center series.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
My et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Atrial fibrillation (n=60). Pulsed-field ablation (PFA) vs. Multielectrode radiofrequency balloon (RFB) was evaluated on Total posterior ablation area (p=<.001). Pulsed-field ablation resulted in a significantly larger total posterior ablation area compared to multielectrode radiofrequency balloon (20.7 vs 7.1 cm²; p < .001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: