Why the study?
Data are scarce on the safety and acute efficacy of AF ablation using a pentaspline pulsed field ablation catheter in patients with severely reduced LVEF < 30%.
Does atrial fibrillation ablation using a pentaspline pulsed field ablation catheter provide acute efficacy and safety in patients with severely reduced LVEF (<30%)?
Does atrial fibrillation ablation using a pentaspline pulsed field ablation catheter provide acute efficacy and safety in patients with severely reduced LVEF (<30%)?
Pentaspline pulsed field ablation is acutely effective and safe for first-time atrial fibrillation ablation in high-risk patients with severely reduced LVEF (<30%).
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
High acute success supports procedural feasibility; leaves open durability, safety, and outcome data for prospective trials.
Introduction Data are scarce regarding the safety and acute efficacy of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation using a pentaspline pulsed field ablation (PFA) catheter in patients with severely reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 30%, a population often considered at high procedural risk. Purpose To evaluate procedural characteristics, acute efficacy, and safety outcomes of PFA in patients with an LVEF < 30% undergoing first-time AF ablation. Methods This was a subanalysis of the FRANCE-PFA prospective nationwide registry, which included all patients undergoing a first AF ablation using the pentaspline PFA catheter between March 2021 and February 2024 in 33 French centers. All patients with a baseline LVEF < 30% were included in this subanalysis. Results A total of 134 patients with LVEF < 30% were included (mean age 63.4 ± 10.8 years; 17.9% women; BMI 28.7 ± 5.4 kg/m²; CHA2DS2-VA score 2.9 ± 1.4). AF type was paroxysmal in 37 patients (27.6%), persistent in 85 (63.4%), and long-standing persistent in 12 (9.0%). A nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy was present in 48.1%, an ischemic cardiomyopathy in 32.7%, and a suspected arrhythmia-induced cardiomyopathy in 19.2%. Severe left atrial dilation was observed in 44.3% of patients, moderate in 24.1%, and none in 25.3%. The majority of procedures were performed under general anesthesia (123; 91.8%) and the remaining 11 procedures (8.2%) were performed under deep sedation (with spontaneous ventilation). The mean procedure duration was 58.0 ± 22.9 minutes and fluoroscopy time was 15.6 ± 9.4 minutes. Acute pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) was achieved in all patients. PVI only was performed in 68 patients (50.7%). Additional PFA lesion sets included the left atrial (LA) posterior wall in 49 (36.6%), the LA roof in 39 (29.1%), the mitral isthmus in 20 (14.9%), and the cavotricuspid isthmus in 8 (6.0%). Two major complications occurred (1.5%): one cardiac tamponade and one ventricular tachycardia that occurred in a patient with stable coronary artery disease during PFA application on the LA posterior wall. No esophageal injury or symptomatic phrenic nerve palsy was observed at discharge. Fifty-two patients (38.8%) were discharged on amiodarone. Conclusions In this prospective nationwide registry, PFA in patients with severely reduced LVEF appeared safe and acutely effective, with a low complication rate. These findings suggest that PFA may be a suitable ablation strategy even in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chaumont et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: