Key result
Pulsed-field ablation with a variable-loop catheter is linked to ~29% lower LAA emptying velocity.
Why the study?
A high incidence of silent cerebral lesions has been reported after pulse-field ablation using a variable-loop irrigated circular catheter, prompting evaluation of left atrial appendage function during the procedure and its potential association with these lesions.
Does pulse-field ablation using a variable-loop irrigated circular catheter impair left atrial appendage function and contribute to silent cerebral lesions in patients undergoing de novo pulmonary vein isolation for atrial fibrillation?
Observational (n=27)
Does pulse-field ablation using a variable-loop irrigated circular catheter impair left atrial appendage function and contribute to silent cerebral lesions in patients undergoing de novo pulmonary vein isolation for atrial fibrillation?
Pulse-field ablation using a variable-loop irrigated circular catheter causes transient LAA stunning that resolves by one month, though post-procedural silent cerebral lesions appear linked to impaired baseline LAA function rather than ablation-induced stunning.
Transient LAA stunning after PFA resolves by 1 month; leaves open whether baseline velocity predicts SCL risk in AF ablation.
Background A high incidence of silent cerebral lesions (SCLs) has been reported after pulse-field ablation (PFA) using a variable-loop irrigated circular catheter (VLCC). Aim This study aimed to evaluate left atrial appendage (LAA) function during PFA using transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and to explore its potential association with the development of SCLs. Methods We prospectively analyzed 27 patients who underwent de novo pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) for atrial fibrillation (AF) using a VLCC with an irrigation flow rate of 30 mL/min. All procedures were performed under general anesthesia. LAA emptying and filling velocities, which are an indices of LAA function, were assessed using pulsed-wave Doppler before and immediately after PFA applications. In cases where LAA function decreased, follow-up TEE was performed one month after ablation. In addition, the amplitudes of LAA potentials recorded at the distal LAA and the Marshall vein were evaluated during ablation. Brain MRI was performed within 24 hours after the procedure to assess SCLs. Results PVI was successfully achieved in all patients. The mean number of PFA applications was 59±12 per procedure (3 applications per ablation), including 30±5 applications to the left pulmonary veins. Four patients were excluded from the analysis because electrical cardioversion was required due to AF. LAA emptying velocity decreased after PFA (69.9 ± 26.8 vs 49.7 ± 19.8 cm/s, p<0.0001) but recovered at 1 month (49.7 ± 19.8 vs 62.7 ± 14.0 cm/s, p=0.005). In contrast, LAA filling velocity showed a non-significant decrease (58.7 ± 19.8 vs 53.1 ± 18.2 cm/s, p=0.073). The amplitude of LAA potentials recorded from the distal LAA decreased after PFA (4.06 ± 1.78 vs 2.43 ± 1.12 mV, p=0.0004), whereas potentials recorded from the Marshall vein showed no significant change (8.52 ± 4.46 vs 6.39 ± 3.87 mV, p=0.087). SCLs were detected on post-procedural brain MRI in 4 (17%) patients. Patients with SCLs had lower LAA emptying and filling velocities than those without SCLs. Conclusion PFA using a VLCC was associated with a reduction in LAA ejection velocity. SCLs were more likely to occur in patients with impaired baseline LAA function rather than as a consequence of PFA-induced LAA stunning.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ishimura et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Atrial fibrillation (n=27). Pulse-field ablation using a variable-loop irrigated circular catheter (VLCC) vs. Baseline (pre-ablation) was evaluated on Left atrial appendage (LAA) emptying velocity (cm/s) (p=<0.0001). Pulse-field ablation using a variable-loop irrigated circular catheter reduced LAA emptying velocity (69.9 vs 49.7 cm/s, P<0.0001), with silent cerebral lesions detected in 17% of patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: