What is the clinical evidence from this study?

Study design: Observational. Population: Atrial Fibrillation (n=210). Intervention: Pulsed-field ablation (PFA) vs. Radiofrequency (RF) ablation. Primary outcome: Arrhythmia recurrence after the blanking period (p=>0.99).

July 4, 2025Open Access

Pulmonary vein isolation with radiofrequency ablation and pulsed field ablation: a follow-up with real-world data

Key Result

Pulsed-field ablation resulted in a similar rate of atrial arrhythmia recurrence after the blanking period (34.6%) compared to radiofrequency ablation (33.7%) in patients with atrial fibrillation.

Study Design

Type

Observational (n=210)

Multicenter

Structured PICO

Does pulsed-field ablation prevent arrhythmia recurrence compared to radiofrequency ablation in patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation?

Population

210 patients with symptomatic paroxysmal (76.2%) or persistent atrial fibrillation undergoing pulmonary vein isolation at a tertiary care center in Poland. Median age 67, 42.4% women.

Intervention

Pulsed-field ablation (PFA) using the Farawave catheter (n=108)

Comparator

Radiofrequency (RF) ablation using a very-high-power, short-duration (vHPSD) catheter or an ablation index-guided catheter (n=102)

Outcome

Freedom from arrhythmia recurrence (atrial fibrillation or atrial tachycardia) after a 3-month blanking period, assessed via Holter ECG at 3, 6, and 12 months postablationhard clinical

Pulsed-field ablation offers comparable efficacy and safety to radiofrequency ablation for pulmonary vein isolation in real-world practice, with significantly shorter procedure times but longer fluoroscopy exposure.

Main Result

Absolute Event Rate: 34.6% vs 33.7%

p-value: p=>0.99

Limitations

Retrospective, non-randomized design
Remote collection of follow-up data may have led to inaccurate recurrence reporting
PFA procedures were performed during the operators' learning curve
Some patients were lost to follow-up
Echocardiographic images could not be presented due to software limitations

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Currently, the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) focuses on restoring sinus rhythm with pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). Pulsed‑field ablation (PFA) is a novel, promising method that requires greater support of real‑world data. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to assess the rate of arrhythmia recurrence in patients who underwent PVI with either radiofrequency (RF) energy or PFA. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective analysis included 210 patients with paroxysmal (76.2%) or persistent AF undergoing PVI at a university hospital. The study group consisted of 108 patients who underwent PFA using the Farawave catheter. RF ablations were performed in 102 patients using a very‑high‑power, short‑duration or index‑guided ablation. The primary end point was no recurrence of arrhythmia. RESULTS: There were no significant baseline differences in patient characteristics. Procedural times were shorter with PFA (55 min) than RF (115 min; P 0.99). The overall frequency of adverse events was similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of the selected method, the efficacy of the procedures remains comparable. There was no significant difference in postoperative adverse events between the groups.

Mark Helpful

Bookmark

Relay

View Full Paper