Key result
THRIVE-supported BIS-guided deep sedation is linked to ~3.6 mm less catheter displacement during pulsed field ablation.
Why the study?
Pulsed field ablation can provoke muscle contraction, cough, and body movement, potentially compromising catheter stability, necessitating evaluation of BIS-guided deep sedation with THRIVE support.
Does THRIVE-based deep sedation improve catheter stability during variable-loop catheter PFA in patients with atrial fibrillation compared to standard deep sedation or general anesthesia?
Cohort (n=111)
No
Does THRIVE-based deep sedation improve catheter stability during variable-loop catheter PFA in patients with atrial fibrillation compared to standard deep sedation or general anesthesia?
THRIVE-supported BIS-guided deep sedation significantly improves catheter stability and procedural conditions during variable-loop PFA compared to standard deep sedation, offering a viable alternative to general anesthesia.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May reduce catheter displacement in PFA; hypothesis-generating and requires randomized confirmation before practice change.
Background: Pulsed field ablation (PFA) can provoke muscle contraction, cough, and body movement, potentially compromising catheter stability. We evaluated bispectral index (BIS)-guided transnasal humidified rapid-insufflation ventilatory exchange (THRIVE)-based deep sedation during variable-loop catheter PFA.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sato et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Atrial fibrillation (n=111). THRIVE-based deep sedation vs. Standard deep sedation was evaluated on Patient-level mean catheter displacement across all 4 pulmonary veins (Adjusted mean difference -3.62 mm, 95% CI -4.56, -2.68, p=<0.001). THRIVE-supported BIS-guided deep sedation was associated with significantly smaller catheter displacement compared to standard deep sedation (adjusted mean difference -3.62 mm) during variable-loop pulsed field ablation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: