The perspective of combining pulsed field ablation and left atrial appendage closure

Pulsed field ablation (PFA) and left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) are increasingly discussed as complementary strategies in atrial fibrillation (AF) care, addressing rhythm control and long-term thromboembolic risk. The rationale is attractive, but the current evidence base is uneven. Randomized evidence for LAAC around AF ablation is strongest for thermal-ablation-era workflows, particularly the OPTION trial, which showed lower non-procedure-related major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding with LAAC than with oral anticoagulation (OAC) and non-inferiority for death, stroke, or systemic embolism. Dedicated PFA-specific evidence remains limited to feasibility studies and early observational experience, and no trial has demonstrated that combined ablation-LAAC procedures are clinically superior when the ablation component is performed with PFA rather than radiofrequency or cryoballoon ablation. In parallel, OAC-withdrawal trials after apparently successful ablation, including OCEAN and ALONE-AF, have reported low thromboembolic event rates in selected lower-risk populations, whereas CLOSURE-AF cautions against simple extrapolation of LAAC benefit to older, frailer patients at high stroke and bleeding risk. This review therefore positions combined PFA-LAAC as a potential option for carefully selected patients rather than an established routine strategy. We summarize procedural workflow, patient selection, trial populations, device-platform considerations, reimbursement and organizational issues, and the main uncertainties that should guide future prospective studies.