Key result
Index PFA is linked to ~35% more reconnected PVs than RFA during redo AF ablation.
Its licence doesn't allow us to show a copy here.
Why the study?
Whether differences exist in the anatomical distribution and extent of pulmonary vein reconnection after index pulsed field ablation versus radiofrequency ablation has not been described.
Does index pulsed field ablation alter the distribution and extent of pulmonary vein reconnection compared to radiofrequency ablation in patients undergoing redo ablation for recurrent atrial fibrillation?
Observational (n=103)
Yes
Does index pulsed field ablation alter the distribution and extent of pulmonary vein reconnection compared to radiofrequency ablation in patients undergoing redo ablation for recurrent atrial fibrillation?
Absolute Event Rate: 2.7% vs 2%
p-value: p=<0.001
In patients requiring redo ablation for recurrent AF, prior index PFA is associated with more extensive and left-sided pulmonary vein reconnection compared to prior index RFA.
Reconnection after PFA is more extensive and left-sided than after RFA; leaves open optimal redo strategies and durability comparisons.
BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing repeat procedures for atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence may have undergone an index procedure with pulsed field ablation (PFA) or radiofrequency ablation (RFA). Whether differences exist in the anatomical distribution and extent of pulmonary vein (PV) reconnection has not been described. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the distribution and extent of PV reconnection in patients undergoing redo AF ablation after index PFA vs RFA rather than the durability of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) between ablation technologies. METHODS: In this retrospective multicenter observational study, consecutive patients undergoing high-density multipolar mapping and RFA for recurrent AF with PV reconnection following index RFA or PFA were enrolled between March 2024 and October 2025. RESULTS: A total of 103 patients (mean age 65 ± 10 years, paroxysmal AF in 67%, 34% female) underwent redo ablation following index PVI, with RFA in 53 and PFA in 50. The number of PVs reconnected was higher post-index PFA than RFA (2.7 ± 1 vs 2.0 ± 0.8 RFA; P < 0.001). Reconnection of the left PVs was more frequent post-PFA (86% vs 49% RFA; P < 0.01), with no difference for right PVs (74% vs 75% RFA; P = 1.0). The extent of PV reconnection was greater post-PFA (87 mm [Q1-Q3: 56-121 mm] vs 19 mm [Q1-Q3: 12-38 mm] post-RFA; P < 0.001). PV reconnection was more common anteriorly post-PFA vs posterior and carinal post-RFA. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing repeat ablation for recurrent AF, reconnection more commonly involved the left PVs, was more extensive, and required significantly more ablation following index pentaspline PFA compared with index point-by-point RFA. No direct comparison of PVI durability can be made between PFA and RFA based on these results.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
D’Elia et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Recurrent atrial fibrillation (n=103). Index pulsed field ablation (PFA) vs. Index radiofrequency ablation (RFA) was evaluated on Number of reconnected pulmonary veins (p=<0.001). Index pulsed field ablation was associated with more reconnected pulmonary veins than index radiofrequency ablation in patients undergoing redo ablation for recurrent AF (2.7 vs 2.0; P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: