Why the study?
The risk of haemolysis and the extent of myocardial and neural injury after monopolar, monophasic PFA using a lattice-tip catheter had not been evaluated relative to bipolar, biphasic single-shot platforms.
Does monopolar, monophasic pulsed field ablation using a lattice-tip catheter cause different rates of haemolysis and myocardial or neural injury compared to bipolar, biphasic PFA platforms in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Does monopolar, monophasic pulsed field ablation using a lattice-tip catheter cause different rates of haemolysis and myocardial or neural injury compared to bipolar, biphasic PFA platforms in patients with atrial fibrillation?
Monopolar PFA with a lattice-tip catheter causes more myocardial injury but less haemolysis and neural injury marker elevation compared to bipolar single-shot PFA systems.
Lattice-tip monopolar PFA was associated with less hemolysis but more myocardial injury than bipolar PFA; leaves open differential clinical safety.
AIMS: The aim of this study was to assess the risk of haemolysis and the extent of myocardial and neural injury after monopolar, monophasic pulsed field ablation (PFA) using a lattice-tip catheter in comparison to single-shot PF ablation platforms employing bipolar, biphasic waveforms. METHODS AND RESULTS: This prospective study included consecutive patients undergoing PFA for atrial fibrillation (AF) using the Affera™ mapping and ablation system (n = 40). Biomarkers for haemolysis (haptoglobin, lactate dehydrogenase, bilirubin), myocardial injury [high-sensitive troponin T, creatine kinase (CK), creatine kinase MB (CK-MB)], neurocardiac injury (S100), and renal function (creatinine) were assessed pre- and within 24 h post-ablation. A subgroup analysis of first-time pulmonary vein isolation-only procedures compared biomarker changes across Affera™, Farapulse™ (PFA-F), and PulseSelect™ (PFA-P). Post-procedural haemolysis occurred across all PFA platforms. The decrease in Δhaptoglobin was most pronounced in PFA-F [AfferaTM: (-) 13.8 ± 18.5 vs. PFA-P: (-) 36.8 ± 35.9 vs. PFA-F: (-) 60.7 ± 26.3 mg/dL, P = <0.001], without haemolysis-related complications. AfferaTM shows a trend towards a higher increase in myocardial injury markers (Δtroponin, 1537 [580] vs. 970 [1023] vs. 1051 [592] pg/mL, P = 0.180; ΔCK, 232 [168] vs. 153 [132] vs. 102 [144] U/L, P = 0.006; ΔCK-MB, 28.5 [15.3] vs. 14.6 [12.4] vs. 13.6 [10.5] U/L, P = 0.055, for Affera TM, PFA-P, and PFA-F, respectively). After ablation, S100 increased in PFA-P and PFA-F, but not in AfferaTM. CONCLUSION: Post-procedural haemolysis after PFA for AF treatment is common and occurs across all PFA platforms. Pulsed field ablation using AfferaTM results in more myocardial injury than bipolar PFA systems with no indication of neural damage.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gold et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: