Hemolysis Induced by Pulsed-Field Ablation of Atrial Arrhythmias: A Comparative Analysis of Current Systems.

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Johannes Bruss, Thomas Kueffer, Hildegard Tanner, Fabian Noti, Andreas Haeberlin, Gregor Thalmann, Nikola Asenov Kozhuharov, Boldizsar Kovacs, Valon Spahiu, Claudia Herrera Siklody, Tobias Reichlin, Laurent Roten
{"title":"Hemolysis Induced by Pulsed-Field Ablation of Atrial Arrhythmias: A Comparative Analysis of Current Systems.","authors":"Johannes Bruss, Thomas Kueffer, Hildegard Tanner, Fabian Noti, Andreas Haeberlin, Gregor Thalmann, Nikola Asenov Kozhuharov, Boldizsar Kovacs, Valon Spahiu, Claudia Herrera Siklody, Tobias Reichlin, Laurent Roten","doi":"10.1111/jce.70049","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Pulsed-field ablation (PFA) is an emerging technology associated with dose-dependent hemolysis as a recently recognized side effect. This study aimed to compare hemolysis levels and assess dose-dependency across three PFA systems: a pentaspline catheter (PSC), a lattice-tip focal catheter (LTFC), and a variable loop circular catheter (VLCC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients treated for atrial arrhythmias with the LTFC (n = 29) or the VLCC (n = 30) were included from a prospective registry. A matched cohort of patients treated with the PSC (n = 28) was recruited from the same registry. Creatinine levels and markers of hemolysis were measured pre-ablation and 1 day postablation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Haptoglobin levels decreased significantly more with the PSC and VLCC compared to the LTFC (-0.65 [-0.76, -0.49] g/L; -0.56 [-0.78, -0.43] g/L, -0.21 [-0.32, -0.1] g/L, respectively; p < 0.001 for both). Per-application decreases in haptoglobin also differed (-17.5 [-20.38, -13.58] mg/L, -24.35 [-36.36, -17.92] mg/L, -3.61 [-5.98, -2.13] mg/L, respectively; p < 0.001 for both). There was no significant difference in haptoglobin decrease between the PSC and VLCC per procedure (p = 1.0). Haptoglobin decrease per application was significantly larger with the VLCC compared to the PSC (p = 0.0048). Per procedure LDH increase followed a similar trend (49 [18, 81.25] U/L; 14 [6, 60] U/L; 13 [-4, 46] U/L; respectively; p = 0.037). No hemolysis-related complications were observed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Hemolysis levels vary significantly among PFA platforms. Focal PFA catheters induce less hemolysis per procedure and application compared to large-footprint catheters.</p>","PeriodicalId":15178,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.70049","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Pulsed-field ablation (PFA) is an emerging technology associated with dose-dependent hemolysis as a recently recognized side effect. This study aimed to compare hemolysis levels and assess dose-dependency across three PFA systems: a pentaspline catheter (PSC), a lattice-tip focal catheter (LTFC), and a variable loop circular catheter (VLCC).

Methods: Patients treated for atrial arrhythmias with the LTFC (n = 29) or the VLCC (n = 30) were included from a prospective registry. A matched cohort of patients treated with the PSC (n = 28) was recruited from the same registry. Creatinine levels and markers of hemolysis were measured pre-ablation and 1 day postablation.

Results: Haptoglobin levels decreased significantly more with the PSC and VLCC compared to the LTFC (-0.65 [-0.76, -0.49] g/L; -0.56 [-0.78, -0.43] g/L, -0.21 [-0.32, -0.1] g/L, respectively; p < 0.001 for both). Per-application decreases in haptoglobin also differed (-17.5 [-20.38, -13.58] mg/L, -24.35 [-36.36, -17.92] mg/L, -3.61 [-5.98, -2.13] mg/L, respectively; p < 0.001 for both). There was no significant difference in haptoglobin decrease between the PSC and VLCC per procedure (p = 1.0). Haptoglobin decrease per application was significantly larger with the VLCC compared to the PSC (p = 0.0048). Per procedure LDH increase followed a similar trend (49 [18, 81.25] U/L; 14 [6, 60] U/L; 13 [-4, 46] U/L; respectively; p = 0.037). No hemolysis-related complications were observed.

Conclusions: Hemolysis levels vary significantly among PFA platforms. Focal PFA catheters induce less hemolysis per procedure and application compared to large-footprint catheters.

脉冲场消融诱发心房心律失常的溶血:当前系统的比较分析。
简介:脉冲场消融(PFA)是一种新兴的技术,与剂量依赖性溶血有关,最近被认为是一种副作用。本研究旨在比较溶血水平并评估三种PFA系统的剂量依赖性:五轴线导管(PSC)、点阵尖局灶导管(LTFC)和可变环环形导管(VLCC)。方法:从前瞻性登记中纳入使用LTFC (n = 29)或VLCC (n = 30)治疗心房心律失常的患者。从同一登记处招募了一组接受PSC治疗的患者(n = 28)。在消融前和消融后1天测量肌酐水平和溶血标志物。结果:与LTFC相比,PSC和VLCC的触珠蛋白水平明显下降(-0.65 [-0.76,-0.49]g/L;-0.56 [-0.78, -0.43] g / L, [-0.32, -0.1] -0.21 g / L,分别;结论:不同PFA平台的溶血水平差异显著。与大足迹导管相比,病灶PFA导管在每次手术和应用中诱导的溶血较少。
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
5.20
自引率
14.80%
发文量
433
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology (JCE) keeps its readership well informed of the latest developments in the study and management of arrhythmic disorders. Edited by Bradley P. Knight, M.D., and a distinguished international editorial board, JCE is the leading journal devoted to the study of the electrophysiology of the heart.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信