Safety, efficacy, and quality of life outcomes of pulsed field ablation in Japanese patients with atrial fibrillation: results from the PULSED AF trial.
Teiichi Yamane, Tetsuo Sasano, Hirofumi Tomita, Daisetsu Aoyama, Shinsuke Miyazaki, Masateru Takigawa, Masaomi Kimura, Taihei Itoh, Seigo Yamashita, Jada M Selma, Jeffrey Cerkvenik, Atul Verma, Hiroshi Tada
{"title":"Safety, efficacy, and quality of life outcomes of pulsed field ablation in Japanese patients with atrial fibrillation: results from the PULSED AF trial.","authors":"Teiichi Yamane, Tetsuo Sasano, Hirofumi Tomita, Daisetsu Aoyama, Shinsuke Miyazaki, Masateru Takigawa, Masaomi Kimura, Taihei Itoh, Seigo Yamashita, Jada M Selma, Jeffrey Cerkvenik, Atul Verma, Hiroshi Tada","doi":"10.1007/s10840-024-01912-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pulsed field ablation (PFA), a novel treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF), has yet to be evaluated in a Japanese cohort.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this sub-analysis of the PULSED AF trial, 12-month outcomes of paroxysmal AF (PAF) and persistent AF (PsAF) patients treated with PFA in four Japan centers were assessed. After a 90-day blanking period, primary efficacy was determined via freedom from a composite endpoint of acute procedural failure, arrhythmia recurrence, or antiarrhythmic drug escalation over 1 year. Patient improvement was evaluated via two quality of life (QoL) surveys (AFEQT and EQ-5D) at baseline and 12 months.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analysis included 32 patients, 16 PAF and 16 PsAF, with PAF patients averaging 61.1 ± 10.6 years and PsAF patients averaging 62.8 ± 11.5 years of age. Females made up 31% of PAF and 25% of PsAF cohorts. Acute pulmonary vein isolation was achieved in 100% of both cohorts. The primary efficacy success rate at 12 months was 75.0% for PAF and 56.3% for PsAF patients. No primary safety events occurred. The mean AFEQT score significantly increased for both PAF (25.9 points, p < 0.0001) and PsAF (13.2 points, p = 0.0002) patients, while the EQ-5D-5L score improved significantly for PAF (0.12 points, p = 0.048) patients but not for PsAF (0.04 points, p = 0.08) patients.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Similar to outcomes in the global cohort, ablation with the PulseSelect™ PFA catheter was efficient, effective, and safe in a Japanese population, resulting in improved QoL for PAF and PsAF patients.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04198701.</p>","PeriodicalId":16202,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-024-01912-w","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Pulsed field ablation (PFA), a novel treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF), has yet to be evaluated in a Japanese cohort.
Methods: In this sub-analysis of the PULSED AF trial, 12-month outcomes of paroxysmal AF (PAF) and persistent AF (PsAF) patients treated with PFA in four Japan centers were assessed. After a 90-day blanking period, primary efficacy was determined via freedom from a composite endpoint of acute procedural failure, arrhythmia recurrence, or antiarrhythmic drug escalation over 1 year. Patient improvement was evaluated via two quality of life (QoL) surveys (AFEQT and EQ-5D) at baseline and 12 months.
Results: The analysis included 32 patients, 16 PAF and 16 PsAF, with PAF patients averaging 61.1 ± 10.6 years and PsAF patients averaging 62.8 ± 11.5 years of age. Females made up 31% of PAF and 25% of PsAF cohorts. Acute pulmonary vein isolation was achieved in 100% of both cohorts. The primary efficacy success rate at 12 months was 75.0% for PAF and 56.3% for PsAF patients. No primary safety events occurred. The mean AFEQT score significantly increased for both PAF (25.9 points, p < 0.0001) and PsAF (13.2 points, p = 0.0002) patients, while the EQ-5D-5L score improved significantly for PAF (0.12 points, p = 0.048) patients but not for PsAF (0.04 points, p = 0.08) patients.
Conclusions: Similar to outcomes in the global cohort, ablation with the PulseSelect™ PFA catheter was efficient, effective, and safe in a Japanese population, resulting in improved QoL for PAF and PsAF patients.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology is an international publication devoted to fostering research in and development of interventional techniques and therapies for the management of cardiac arrhythmias. It is designed primarily to present original research studies and scholarly scientific reviews of basic and applied science and clinical research in this field. The Journal will adopt a multidisciplinary approach to link physical, experimental, and clinical sciences as applied to the development of and practice in interventional electrophysiology. The Journal will examine techniques ranging from molecular, chemical and pharmacologic therapies to device and ablation technology. Accordingly, original research in clinical, epidemiologic and basic science arenas will be considered for publication. Applied engineering or physical science studies pertaining to interventional electrophysiology will be encouraged. The Journal is committed to providing comprehensive and detailed treatment of major interventional therapies and innovative techniques in a structured and clinically relevant manner. It is directed at clinical practitioners and investigators in the rapidly growing field of interventional electrophysiology. The editorial staff and board reflect this bias and include noted international experts in this area with a wealth of expertise in basic and clinical investigation. Peer review of all submissions, conflict of interest guidelines and periodic editorial board review of all Journal policies have been established.