Key result
Balloon-in-basket and circular pulsed-field ablation systems induce comparable biomarker responses.
Why the study?
Does pulsed-field ablation with a balloon-in-basket system compared to a circular catheter system affect biomarker responses of hemolysis, inflammation, and myocardial injury in patients undergoing first-time pulmonary vein isolation?
Observational (n=40)
No
Does pulsed-field ablation with a balloon-in-basket system compared to a circular catheter system affect biomarker responses of hemolysis, inflammation, and myocardial injury in patients undergoing first-time pulmonary vein isolation?
Absolute Event Rate: -4% vs -13%
p-value: p=0.090
Balloon-in-basket and circular catheter PFA systems elicit comparable overall biomarker responses of inflammation and myocardial injury, with minor non-significant differences in hemolysis markers.
Comparable biomarker responses with both PFA systems should not yet change practice; leaves open whether minor hemolysis differences affect outcomes.
Background Pulsed-field ablation (PFA) is a non-thermal energy source for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). Data comparing the biological impact of different PFA technologies remain limited. This study assessed changes in biomarkers of hemolysis, inflammation, and biochemical myocardial injury using two PFA systems: a balloon-in-basket (BiB) and a circular catheter (PS). Methods This prospective, single-center, non-randomized study enrolled consecutive patients undergoing first-time PVI. leukocytes, C-reactive protein (CRP), platelets, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), haptoglobin, total bilirubin, troponin T, creatine kinase (CK), myoglobin, creatinine, and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) were before and 16–18 h after ablation. Results Forty patients were included (BiB n = 20, PS n = 20). Baseline characteristics were comparable. Acute PVI was achieved in all cases. BiB required fewer applications (16 vs. 32, p < 0.001), more contrast (45 vs. 30 mL, p < 0.001), and had longer procedure and LA dwell times ( p < 0.001). Both systems caused significant increases in leukocytes, CRP, LDH, troponin, and CK without inter-group differences. Haptoglobin decreased significantly in both, more pronounced with PS (Δ −13 vs. −4 mg/dL, p = 0.090). Renal function remained stable overall, with one PS patient developing an acute kidney injury. In the BiB group, Δ-Hemoglobin correlated inversely with application number ( p = 0.046). In the PS group, Δ -Troponin and Δ -CK correlated positively ( p < 0.05). Conclusion Despite comparable overall biomarker responses, a numerically greater, non-significant haptoglobin decline and an isolated, likely multifactorial transient AKI in the PS group may suggest differences in biomarker responses, warranting further investigation in larger studies. However, the clinical relevance of these findings remains uncertain.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wenzel et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Atrial fibrillation (n=40). Balloon-in-basket (BiB) pulsed-field ablation catheter vs. Circular pulsed-field ablation catheter (PulseSelect) was evaluated on Change in haptoglobin (Δ Haptoglobin) in mg/dL (p=0.090). Balloon-in-basket and circular pulsed-field ablation systems induced comparable biomarker responses, with a non-significant greater haptoglobin decline (-13 vs -4 mg/dL) using the circular system.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: