Key result
PFA matches thermal ablation for AF recurrence and safety in overweight and obese patients.
Why the study?
Conventional thermal ablation often yields suboptimal results in obese AF patients due to anatomical and biophysical challenges, which pulsed field ablation may overcome.
Does pulsed field ablation reduce arrhythmia recurrence compared to conventional thermal ablation in overweight and obese patients with atrial fibrillation?
Systematic Review (n=1,084)
Does pulsed field ablation reduce arrhythmia recurrence compared to conventional thermal ablation in overweight and obese patients with atrial fibrillation?
Current observational evidence suggests that pulsed field ablation is a feasible and safe option for atrial fibrillation ablation in overweight and obese patients, with outcomes comparable to conventional thermal ablation techniques.
Supports PFA feasibility in obese AF; leaves open whether it reduces recurrence versus thermal ablation in randomized trials.
Background: Obesity is a major independent risk factor for atrial fibrillation (AF), contributing to adverse outcomes and complicating rhythm control. While lifestyle modification is recommended, catheter ablation remains central to management. Conventional thermal ablation techniques often yield suboptimal results in obese patients due to anatomical and biophysical challenges. Pulsed field ablation (PFA), a novel non-thermal modality, may overcome these limitations. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Embase identified observational cohort studies (2017–2026) evaluating PFA outcomes in obese AF patients or across BMI categories. Four cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. Results: Findings on AF recurrence were heterogeneous. Recurrence rates appeared lower with PFA compared to radiofrequency ablation (RFA), though differences were not statistically significant. In a PFA-only study, freedom from arrhythmia recurrence did not vary across BMI categories. Compared with cryoballoon ablation (CBA), one matched-cohort study demonstrated significantly higher one-year freedom from AF with PFA-PVI, whereas another reported no difference. Left atrial epicardial adipose tissue (LA EAT) emerged as the only independent predictor of recurrence in PFA patients, suggesting electrical field perturbation by fat tissue. Radiation exposure was lower with PFA than CBA, while fluoroscopy time and periprocedural complications were comparable across groups. Conclusions: Current observational evidence suggests that PFA may be a feasible and safe option for AF ablation in overweight and obese patients, with outcomes comparable to conventional ablation techniques. However, comparative efficacy and long-term safety remain uncertain. Obesity-related adipose hypertrophy, systemic inflammation, and atrial remodeling may alter electric field distribution, contributing to variable recurrence outcomes. Larger prospective and randomized trials are warranted to define the long-term role of PFA in this high-risk population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Waliyuddin et al. (2026) conducted a systematic review in Atrial fibrillation in overweight and obese patients (n=1,084). Pulsed Field Ablation (PFA) vs. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA), cryoballoon ablation (CBA), or different BMI categories was evaluated on Atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence following catheter ablation. Pulsed field ablation demonstrated comparable atrial fibrillation recurrence rates and safety profiles to conventional thermal ablation techniques in overweight and obese patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: