TY - JOUR
T1 - Multielectrode catheter-based pulsed electric field vs. cryoballoon for atrial fibrillation ablation
T2 - a systematic review and meta-analysis
AU - Vetta, Giampaolo
AU - Della Rocca, Domenico Giovanni
AU - Parlavecchio, Antonio
AU - Magnocavallo, Michele
AU - Sorgente, Antonio
AU - Pannone, Luigi
AU - Del Monte, Alvise
AU - Almorad, Alexandre
AU - Sieira, Juan
AU - Marcon, Lorenzo
AU - Doundoulakis, Ioannis
AU - Mohanty, Sanghamitra
AU - Audiat, Charles
AU - Nakasone, Kazutaka
AU - Bala, Gezim
AU - Ströker, Erwin
AU - Combes, Stéphane
AU - Overeinder, Ingrid
AU - Bianchi, Stefano
AU - Palmisano, Pietro
AU - Rossi, Pietro
AU - Boveda, Serge
AU - La Meir, Marc
AU - Natale, Andrea
AU - Sarkozy, Andrea
AU - de Asmundis, Carlo
AU - Chierchia, Gian Battista
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.
PY - 2024/12/3
Y1 - 2024/12/3
N2 - AIMS: Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is an innovative technology recently adopted for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). Preclinical and clinical studies have reported a remarkable safety profile, as a result of its tissue-specific effect targeting cardiomyocytes and sparing adjacent tissues. Single-shot pentaspline system was the first PFA device to receive regulatory approval. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of PFA with the single-shot pentaspline system vs. currently available second-/third-/fourth-generation cryoballoon ablation (CRYO) technologies. METHODS AND RESULTS: We systematically searched electronic databases for studies focusing on AF ablation employing the PFA single-shot pentaspline system or second-/third-/fourth-generation CRYO technologies. The primary endpoints were acute procedural success assessed on a vein and patient basis. Safety endpoints included overall periprocedural complications and major periprocedural complications. We also compared procedural, fluoroscopy times, and freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmias (ATs) at follow-up (secondary endpoints). Twenty and 70 studies were included for PFA and CRYO, respectively. Pulsed field ablation demonstrated greater acute procedural success on a vein basis (99.9% vs. 99.1%; P < 0.001), as well as per patient (99.5% vs. 98.4%; P < 0.001). Pulsed field ablation yielded lower overall periprocedural complications (3.1% vs. 5.6%; P < 0.001), shorter procedural time (75.9 min vs. 105.6 min; P < 0.001), and fluoroscopy time (14.2 min vs. 18.9 min; P < 0.001) compared with CRYO. No differences were found for major periprocedural complications (1.2% vs. 1.0%; P = 0.46) and freedom from ATs at 1 year (82.3% vs. 80.3%; log-rank P = 0.61). CONCLUSION: Pulsed field ablation contributed to higher acute procedural success and safety compared with CRYO. No statistically significant differences in AT recurrence at 1-year follow-up were observed.
AB - AIMS: Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is an innovative technology recently adopted for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). Preclinical and clinical studies have reported a remarkable safety profile, as a result of its tissue-specific effect targeting cardiomyocytes and sparing adjacent tissues. Single-shot pentaspline system was the first PFA device to receive regulatory approval. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of PFA with the single-shot pentaspline system vs. currently available second-/third-/fourth-generation cryoballoon ablation (CRYO) technologies. METHODS AND RESULTS: We systematically searched electronic databases for studies focusing on AF ablation employing the PFA single-shot pentaspline system or second-/third-/fourth-generation CRYO technologies. The primary endpoints were acute procedural success assessed on a vein and patient basis. Safety endpoints included overall periprocedural complications and major periprocedural complications. We also compared procedural, fluoroscopy times, and freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmias (ATs) at follow-up (secondary endpoints). Twenty and 70 studies were included for PFA and CRYO, respectively. Pulsed field ablation demonstrated greater acute procedural success on a vein basis (99.9% vs. 99.1%; P < 0.001), as well as per patient (99.5% vs. 98.4%; P < 0.001). Pulsed field ablation yielded lower overall periprocedural complications (3.1% vs. 5.6%; P < 0.001), shorter procedural time (75.9 min vs. 105.6 min; P < 0.001), and fluoroscopy time (14.2 min vs. 18.9 min; P < 0.001) compared with CRYO. No differences were found for major periprocedural complications (1.2% vs. 1.0%; P = 0.46) and freedom from ATs at 1 year (82.3% vs. 80.3%; log-rank P = 0.61). CONCLUSION: Pulsed field ablation contributed to higher acute procedural success and safety compared with CRYO. No statistically significant differences in AT recurrence at 1-year follow-up were observed.
KW - Ablation
KW - Atrial fibrillation
KW - Catheter ablation
KW - Cryoballoon ablation
KW - Pulmonary vein isolation
KW - Pulsed field ablation
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85212713670&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1093/europace/euae293
DO - 10.1093/europace/euae293
M3 - Article
C2 - 39579376
AN - SCOPUS:85212713670
VL - 26
JO - Europace
JF - Europace
SN - 1099-5129
IS - 12
M1 - euae293
ER -