Safety and Efficacy of Pulse Field Ablation in the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation and Its Comparison with Traditional Thermal Ablation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Reviews in cardiovascular medicine Pub Date : 2024-11-21 eCollection Date: 2024-11-01 DOI:10.31083/j.rcm2511415
Aobo Gong, Wentao Li, Fanghui Li, Yao Tong, Ying Cao, Rui Zeng
{"title":"Safety and Efficacy of Pulse Field Ablation in the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation and Its Comparison with Traditional Thermal Ablation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Aobo Gong, Wentao Li, Fanghui Li, Yao Tong, Ying Cao, Rui Zeng","doi":"10.31083/j.rcm2511415","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pulsed field ablation (PFA) and to compare it with the efficacy and safety of traditional thermal ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were searched for randomized or observational studies exploring the efficacy and safety of PFA and comparing PFA with traditional thermal ablation in patients with AF.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 4437 patients from 16 studies that only included PFA as the ablation method and 1792 patients from 9 comparing PFA to traditional thermal ablation were included in the final analysis. In studies that considered PFA alone, the freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence was 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76-0.84), and the incidence of periprocedural complications was 0.03 (95% CI 0.02-0.05). In comparative studies, there was no significant difference in the freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence (odds ratio (OR) 1.24, 95% CI 0.90-1.72) and the incidence of periprocedural complications (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.37-1.48) of PFA compared to that of traditional thermal ablation. In the subgroup with a follow-up period less than 12 months, PFA had higher freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence rate compared to thermal ablation (OR 2.19, 95% CI 1.14-4.20).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PFA is a safe and effective catheter ablation method that is not inferior to the traditional and well-established thermal ablation. It can be used as a treatment of choice for patients with AF.</p><p><strong>The prospero registration: </strong>CRD42023473026, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=473026.</p>","PeriodicalId":20989,"journal":{"name":"Reviews in cardiovascular medicine","volume":"25 11","pages":"415"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11607503/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reviews in cardiovascular medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31083/j.rcm2511415","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pulsed field ablation (PFA) and to compare it with the efficacy and safety of traditional thermal ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF).

Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were searched for randomized or observational studies exploring the efficacy and safety of PFA and comparing PFA with traditional thermal ablation in patients with AF.

Results: A total of 4437 patients from 16 studies that only included PFA as the ablation method and 1792 patients from 9 comparing PFA to traditional thermal ablation were included in the final analysis. In studies that considered PFA alone, the freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence was 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76-0.84), and the incidence of periprocedural complications was 0.03 (95% CI 0.02-0.05). In comparative studies, there was no significant difference in the freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence (odds ratio (OR) 1.24, 95% CI 0.90-1.72) and the incidence of periprocedural complications (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.37-1.48) of PFA compared to that of traditional thermal ablation. In the subgroup with a follow-up period less than 12 months, PFA had higher freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence rate compared to thermal ablation (OR 2.19, 95% CI 1.14-4.20).

Conclusions: PFA is a safe and effective catheter ablation method that is not inferior to the traditional and well-established thermal ablation. It can be used as a treatment of choice for patients with AF.

The prospero registration: CRD42023473026, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=473026.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Reviews in cardiovascular medicine
Reviews in cardiovascular medicine 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
3.70%
发文量
377
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: RCM is an international, peer-reviewed, open access journal. RCM publishes research articles, review papers and short communications on cardiovascular medicine as well as research on cardiovascular disease. We aim to provide a forum for publishing papers which explore the pathogenesis and promote the progression of cardiac and vascular diseases. We also seek to establish an interdisciplinary platform, focusing on translational issues, to facilitate the advancement of research, clinical treatment and diagnostic procedures. Heart surgery, cardiovascular imaging, risk factors and various clinical cardiac & vascular research will be considered.
×
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