Procedural performance and outcome after pulsed field ablation for pulmonary vein isolation: comparison with a reference radiofrequency database.

European heart journal open Pub Date : 2024-02-28 eCollection Date: 2024-03-01 DOI:10.1093/ehjopen/oeae014
Benjamin De Becker, Milad El Haddad, Maarten De Smet, Clara François, Rene Tavernier, Jean-Benoit le Polain de Waroux, Sébastien Knecht, Mattias Duytschaever
{"title":"Procedural performance and outcome after pulsed field ablation for pulmonary vein isolation: comparison with a reference radiofrequency database.","authors":"Benjamin De Becker, Milad El Haddad, Maarten De Smet, Clara François, Rene Tavernier, Jean-Benoit le Polain de Waroux, Sébastien Knecht, Mattias Duytschaever","doi":"10.1093/ehjopen/oeae014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a promising ablation technique for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) with appealing advantages over radiofrequency (RF) including speed, tissue selectivity, and the promise of enhanced durability. In this study, we determine the procedural performance, efficacy, safety, and durability of PFA and compare its performance with a dataset of optimized RF ablation.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>After propensity score matching, we compared 161 patients who received optimized RF-guided PVI in the PowerPlus study (CLOSE protocol) with 161 patients undergoing PFA-guided PVI for paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation (AF; pentaspline basket catheter). The median age was 65 years with 78% paroxysmal AF in the PFA group (comparable characteristics in the RF group). Pulsed field ablation-guided PVI was obtained in all patients with a procedure time of 47 min (vs. 71 min in RF, <i>P</i> < 0.0001) and a fluoroscopy time of 15 min (vs. 11 min in RF, <i>P</i> < 0.0001). One serious adverse event [transient ischaemic attack] occurred in a patient with thrombocytosis (0.6 vs. 0% in RF). During the 6-month follow-up, 24 and 27 patients experienced a recurrence with 20 and 11 repeat procedures in the PFA and the RF groups, respectively (<i>P</i> = 0.6 and 0.09). High-density mapping revealed a status of 4 isolated veins in 7/20 patients in the PFA group and in 2/11 patients in the RF group (35 vs. 18%, <i>P</i> = 0.3).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Pulsed field ablation fulfils the promise of offering a short and safe PVI procedure, even when compared with optimized RF in experienced hands. Pulmonary vein reconnection is the dominant cause of recurrence and tempers the expectation of a high durability rate with PFA.</p>","PeriodicalId":93995,"journal":{"name":"European heart journal open","volume":"4 2","pages":"oeae014"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10939121/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European heart journal open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjopen/oeae014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims: Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a promising ablation technique for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) with appealing advantages over radiofrequency (RF) including speed, tissue selectivity, and the promise of enhanced durability. In this study, we determine the procedural performance, efficacy, safety, and durability of PFA and compare its performance with a dataset of optimized RF ablation.

Methods and results: After propensity score matching, we compared 161 patients who received optimized RF-guided PVI in the PowerPlus study (CLOSE protocol) with 161 patients undergoing PFA-guided PVI for paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation (AF; pentaspline basket catheter). The median age was 65 years with 78% paroxysmal AF in the PFA group (comparable characteristics in the RF group). Pulsed field ablation-guided PVI was obtained in all patients with a procedure time of 47 min (vs. 71 min in RF, P < 0.0001) and a fluoroscopy time of 15 min (vs. 11 min in RF, P < 0.0001). One serious adverse event [transient ischaemic attack] occurred in a patient with thrombocytosis (0.6 vs. 0% in RF). During the 6-month follow-up, 24 and 27 patients experienced a recurrence with 20 and 11 repeat procedures in the PFA and the RF groups, respectively (P = 0.6 and 0.09). High-density mapping revealed a status of 4 isolated veins in 7/20 patients in the PFA group and in 2/11 patients in the RF group (35 vs. 18%, P = 0.3).

Conclusion: Pulsed field ablation fulfils the promise of offering a short and safe PVI procedure, even when compared with optimized RF in experienced hands. Pulmonary vein reconnection is the dominant cause of recurrence and tempers the expectation of a high durability rate with PFA.

脉冲场消融肺静脉隔离术后的手术效果和结果:与射频参考数据库的比较。
目的:脉冲场消融术(PFA)是一种很有前景的肺静脉隔离(PVI)消融技术,与射频(RF)相比,它具有速度快、组织选择性强等吸引人的优点,而且有望提高耐用性。在这项研究中,我们确定了 PFA 的程序性能、疗效、安全性和耐用性,并将其性能与优化射频消融的数据集进行了比较:经过倾向评分匹配后,我们将在 PowerPlus 研究(CLOSE 方案)中接受优化射频引导下 PVI 的 161 名患者与接受 PFA 引导下 PVI 治疗阵发性或持续性房颤(房颤;五线篮导管)的 161 名患者进行了比较。中位年龄为 65 岁,PFA 组中 78% 为阵发性房颤(射频组的特征与之相当)。所有患者均在脉冲场消融引导下进行了 PVI,手术时间为 47 分钟(射频为 71 分钟,P < 0.0001),透视时间为 15 分钟(射频为 11 分钟,P < 0.0001)。一名血小板增多症患者发生了一起严重不良事件[短暂性缺血发作](0.6%,而 RF 为 0%)。在 6 个月的随访期间,PFA 组和 RF 组分别有 24 名和 27 名患者复发,重复手术次数分别为 20 次和 11 次(P = 0.6 和 0.09)。高密度绘图显示,PFA 组有 7/20 名患者存在 4 条孤立静脉,RF 组有 2/11 名患者存在 4 条孤立静脉(35% 对 18%,P = 0.3):脉冲场消融术实现了提供简短、安全的 PVI 手术的承诺,即使与经验丰富的优化射频相比也是如此。肺静脉再连接是导致复发的主要原因,这也降低了对脉冲场消融术高持久率的期望。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信