TY - JOUR
T1 - Redo ablation procedures to treat recurrent atrial arrhythmias via a pentaspline pulsed field ablation catheter
T2 - a prospective, multicenter experience
AU - HRMC Investigators
AU - Cespón-Fernández, María
AU - Della Rocca, Domenico G
AU - Magnocavallo, Michele
AU - Betancur, Andrés
AU - Lombardo, Ilenia
AU - Pannone, Luigi
AU - Vetta, Giampaolo
AU - Sorgente, Antonio
AU - Polselli, Marco
AU - Audiat, Charles
AU - Del Monte, Alvise
AU - Combes, Stéphane
AU - Marcon, Lorenzo
AU - Overeinder, Ingrid
AU - Nakasone, Kazutaka
AU - Mouram, Sahar
AU - Mohanty, Sanghamitra
AU - Bianchi, Stefano
AU - Almorad, Alexandre
AU - Sieira, Juan
AU - Bala, Gezim
AU - Ströker, Erwin
AU - Rossi, Pietro
AU - Sarkozy, Andrea
AU - Boveda, Serge
AU - Natale, Andrea
AU - de Asmundis, Carlo
AU - Chierchia, Gian-Battista
N1 - © 2025. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
PY - 2025
Y1 - 2025
N2 - BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing atrial fibrillation (AF) catheter ablation may require redo procedures involving pulmonary vein (PV) re-isolation and/or ablation of extra-PV sites. Pulsed field ablation (PFA) offers a highly selective energy source for cardiac tissue, with the potential to reduce collateral damage to adjacent structures. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of redo ablation using a pentaspline PFA system.METHODS: Patients undergoing redo procedures with a pentaspline PFA system at three international centers were enrolled. A workflow was established based on rhythm at presentation: sinus rhythm (Group 1), atrial flutter/atrial tachycardia (Group 2), or AF (Group 3). Propensity score matching was used for comparison between PFA- and RF-based redo ablations.RESULTS: A total of 117 patients were included (Group 1: 64, Group 2: 18, Group 3: 35). PV re-isolation was required in 71.9% and 72.2% of Group 1 and 2 patients, respectively. PFA terminated all cases of non-cavotricuspid isthmus dependent flutter and 45.7% of cases of AF. One major complication (0.9%; frontal cerebral hematoma) was documented. Freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmias at 12 months was 78.3% (95% CI 69.6-84.8%) without statistically significant differences among groups (Group 1: 85.7%; Group 2: 77%; Group 3: 65.5%; p = 0.053). PFA led to similar arrhythmia freedom compared to RF, but with significantly shorter procedural and dwelling times.CONCLUSION: The adoption of a pentaspline PFA system for repeat ablation procedures was feasible, safe, and effective at 1-year follow-up. No clinical differences were observed between PFA and RF; however, redo PFA cases were significantly shorter.
AB - BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing atrial fibrillation (AF) catheter ablation may require redo procedures involving pulmonary vein (PV) re-isolation and/or ablation of extra-PV sites. Pulsed field ablation (PFA) offers a highly selective energy source for cardiac tissue, with the potential to reduce collateral damage to adjacent structures. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of redo ablation using a pentaspline PFA system.METHODS: Patients undergoing redo procedures with a pentaspline PFA system at three international centers were enrolled. A workflow was established based on rhythm at presentation: sinus rhythm (Group 1), atrial flutter/atrial tachycardia (Group 2), or AF (Group 3). Propensity score matching was used for comparison between PFA- and RF-based redo ablations.RESULTS: A total of 117 patients were included (Group 1: 64, Group 2: 18, Group 3: 35). PV re-isolation was required in 71.9% and 72.2% of Group 1 and 2 patients, respectively. PFA terminated all cases of non-cavotricuspid isthmus dependent flutter and 45.7% of cases of AF. One major complication (0.9%; frontal cerebral hematoma) was documented. Freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmias at 12 months was 78.3% (95% CI 69.6-84.8%) without statistically significant differences among groups (Group 1: 85.7%; Group 2: 77%; Group 3: 65.5%; p = 0.053). PFA led to similar arrhythmia freedom compared to RF, but with significantly shorter procedural and dwelling times.CONCLUSION: The adoption of a pentaspline PFA system for repeat ablation procedures was feasible, safe, and effective at 1-year follow-up. No clinical differences were observed between PFA and RF; however, redo PFA cases were significantly shorter.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=86000281357&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s10840-025-02021-y
DO - 10.1007/s10840-025-02021-y
M3 - Article
C2 - 40038209
JO - Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology
JF - Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology
SN - 1383-875X
ER -