Farapulse was associated with shorter procedure times (median 50 vs 55 min) but longer fluoroscopy times and higher 12-hour postprocedural troponin I levels compared to Varipulse.
Cohort (n=50)
No
Does Farapulse compared to Varipulse improve perioperative parameters and myocardial necrosis in a real-world cohort?
Farapulse offers shorter procedure times, whereas Varipulse reduces fluoroscopy exposure and myocardial necrosis (troponin release) in real-world PFA procedures.
Absolute Event Rate: 50% vs 55%
p-value: p=<0.001
In a real-world cohort, Farapulse was associated with shorter procedure times, while Varipulse, aided by 3D mapping, was linked to reduced fluoroscopy exposure and lower troponin release. These findings highlight the need for further studies on long-term outcomes and optimization across different PFA systems.
Krzowski et al. (Thu,) conducted a cohort in Symptomatic atrial fibrillation (n=50). Farapulse pulsed field ablation vs. Varipulse pulsed field ablation was evaluated on Procedure time (minutes) (p=<0.001). Farapulse was associated with shorter procedure times (median 50 vs 55 min) but longer fluoroscopy times and higher 12-hour postprocedural troponin I levels compared to Varipulse.