Adverse Event Landscape of Pulsed Field Ablation Catheters: A Computational Review of FDA MAUDE Post-Market Surveillance Data.

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Reviews in cardiovascular medicine Pub Date : 2026-09-11 eCollection Date: 2026-09-01 DOI:10.31083/RCM53385
Matthew W Segar, Kaleb D Lambeth, Shyon Parsa, Mehdi Razavi
{"title":"Adverse Event Landscape of Pulsed Field Ablation Catheters: A Computational Review of FDA MAUDE Post-Market Surveillance Data.","authors":"Matthew W Segar, Kaleb D Lambeth, Shyon Parsa, Mehdi Razavi","doi":"10.31083/RCM53385","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-cleared for pulmonary vein isolation in atrial fibrillation. Using a keyword-based natural language processing pipeline applied to free-text narratives in the FDA MAUDE database, we aimed to characterize and compare adverse event and device malfunction profiles across the four cleared PFA systems.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrieved 6930 MAUDE reports for FDA product code QZI (pulsed field ablation catheter) spanning December 13, 2023 through April 30, 2026, covering all four FDA-cleared PFA systems. Reports were deduplicated and assigned to a specific device system using manufacturer and brand name fields. Concatenated free-text narratives were classified into 11 predefined adverse event categories using multi-label keyword-based natural language processing. Device malfunction reports were additionally subclassified into one of 11 hardware-specific subtypes. Descriptive statistics were used throughout.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 6930 reports, 4185 (60.4%) were classified into at least one adverse event category. The three most common categories were device/catheter malfunction (2068; 29.8%), cardiac tamponade/pericardial effusion (915; 13.2%), and stroke/TIA/cerebral embolism (600; 8.7%). PFA-specific physiologic adverse events-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), hemolysis/acute kidney injury, and phrenic nerve palsy-accounted for 615 combined reports (8.9% of all reports). Fatality proportions were highest for vascular access complications (6.8%), esophageal/atrioesophageal injury (6.0%), and coronary artery spasm/STEMI (5.3%). Among malfunction reports, retraction/retrieval failure predominated for Farapulse (48.9%), while electrical/energy delivery failure was the leading subtype for PulseSelect (29.4%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Natural language processing (NLP)-assisted keyword classification enables systematic, scalable characterization of adverse event patterns across nearly 7000 real-world PFA reports. PFA-specific physiologic adverse events are identifiable through post-market surveillance data and constitute a distinct safety phenotype separate from device malfunction. This approach provides a reproducible framework for near-real-time surveillance of novel cardiac ablation systems.</p>","PeriodicalId":20989,"journal":{"name":"Reviews in cardiovascular medicine","volume":"27 9","pages":"53385"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13653163/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Reviews in cardiovascular medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31083/RCM53385","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-cleared for pulmonary vein isolation in atrial fibrillation. Using a keyword-based natural language processing pipeline applied to free-text narratives in the FDA MAUDE database, we aimed to characterize and compare adverse event and device malfunction profiles across the four cleared PFA systems.

Methods: We retrieved 6930 MAUDE reports for FDA product code QZI (pulsed field ablation catheter) spanning December 13, 2023 through April 30, 2026, covering all four FDA-cleared PFA systems. Reports were deduplicated and assigned to a specific device system using manufacturer and brand name fields. Concatenated free-text narratives were classified into 11 predefined adverse event categories using multi-label keyword-based natural language processing. Device malfunction reports were additionally subclassified into one of 11 hardware-specific subtypes. Descriptive statistics were used throughout.

Results: Of 6930 reports, 4185 (60.4%) were classified into at least one adverse event category. The three most common categories were device/catheter malfunction (2068; 29.8%), cardiac tamponade/pericardial effusion (915; 13.2%), and stroke/TIA/cerebral embolism (600; 8.7%). PFA-specific physiologic adverse events-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), hemolysis/acute kidney injury, and phrenic nerve palsy-accounted for 615 combined reports (8.9% of all reports). Fatality proportions were highest for vascular access complications (6.8%), esophageal/atrioesophageal injury (6.0%), and coronary artery spasm/STEMI (5.3%). Among malfunction reports, retraction/retrieval failure predominated for Farapulse (48.9%), while electrical/energy delivery failure was the leading subtype for PulseSelect (29.4%).

Conclusions: Natural language processing (NLP)-assisted keyword classification enables systematic, scalable characterization of adverse event patterns across nearly 7000 real-world PFA reports. PFA-specific physiologic adverse events are identifiable through post-market surveillance data and constitute a distinct safety phenotype separate from device malfunction. This approach provides a reproducible framework for near-real-time surveillance of novel cardiac ablation systems.

脉冲场消融导管的不良事件景观:FDA MAUDE上市后监测数据的计算回顾。
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
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书