{"title":"比较脉冲场消融、低温球囊消融和高功率短时间射频消融治疗心房颤动的疗效和安全性：系统综述和网络荟萃分析。","authors":"Natee Deepan, Adivitch Sripusanapan, Narut Prasitlumkum, Noppachai Siranart, Ronpichai Chokesuwattanaskul, Leenhapong Navaravong, Jakrin Kewcharoen, Patavee Pajareya, Nithi Tokavanich","doi":"10.1007/s10840-025-02033-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pulsed field ablation (PFA) and high-power short-duration radiofrequency ablation (HPSD) are emerging techniques for treating atrial fibrillation (AF), offering promising results compared to cryoballoon ablation (CBA). This network meta-analysis aims to evaluates the efficacy and safety of PFA, HPSD, and CBA.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched for relevant studies until October 2024. The primary outcome is freedom from atrial arrhythmia. A random-effects model was used for data synthesis, and P-scores were employed for outcome ranking. Point estimation (odd ratios) was calculated for comparisons.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighteen studies were included in our network meta-analysis, involving 7,071 atrial fibrillation patients. Among them, 2,023 (29%), 3,725 (53%), and 1,323 (18%) patients underwent PFA, CBA, and HPSD, respectively. PFA demonstrated a higher freedom from atrial arrhythmia, with an odds ratio (OR) of 3.63 (95% CI: 2.95-4.46) compared to CBA and 1.89 (95% CI: 1.47-2.43) compared to HPSD. However, PFA was associated with a higher risk of complications (OR = 6.54, 95% CI: 2.13-20.00) compared to CBA, while HPSD showed an insignificant association with a lower risk of complications compared to CBA (OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.15-2.42). PFA had the shortest procedural time (P-score: 100%), while HPSD had the longest (P-score: 0%). In contrast, HPSD had the shortest fluoroscopic time, with P-scores of 100%, 46%, and 3% for HPSD, PFA, and CBA, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PFA demonstrated higher efficacy but also a higher risk of complications compared to HPSD and CBA. HPSD showed greater efficacy with comparable safety to CBA.</p>","PeriodicalId":16202,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing efficacy and safety between pulsed field ablation, cryoballoon ablation and high-power short duration radiofrequency ablation in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Natee Deepan, Adivitch Sripusanapan, Narut Prasitlumkum, Noppachai Siranart, Ronpichai Chokesuwattanaskul, Leenhapong Navaravong, Jakrin Kewcharoen, Patavee Pajareya, Nithi Tokavanich\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10840-025-02033-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pulsed field ablation (PFA) and high-power short-duration radiofrequency ablation (HPSD) are emerging techniques for treating atrial fibrillation (AF), offering promising results compared to cryoballoon ablation (CBA). This network meta-analysis aims to evaluates the efficacy and safety of PFA, HPSD, and CBA.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched for relevant studies until October 2024. The primary outcome is freedom from atrial arrhythmia. A random-effects model was used for data synthesis, and P-scores were employed for outcome ranking. Point estimation (odd ratios) was calculated for comparisons.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighteen studies were included in our network meta-analysis, involving 7,071 atrial fibrillation patients. Among them, 2,023 (29%), 3,725 (53%), and 1,323 (18%) patients underwent PFA, CBA, and HPSD, respectively. PFA demonstrated a higher freedom from atrial arrhythmia, with an odds ratio (OR) of 3.63 (95% CI: 2.95-4.46) compared to CBA and 1.89 (95% CI: 1.47-2.43) compared to HPSD. However, PFA was associated with a higher risk of complications (OR = 6.54, 95% CI: 2.13-20.00) compared to CBA, while HPSD showed an insignificant association with a lower risk of complications compared to CBA (OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.15-2.42). PFA had the shortest procedural time (P-score: 100%), while HPSD had the longest (P-score: 0%). In contrast, HPSD had the shortest fluoroscopic time, with P-scores of 100%, 46%, and 3% for HPSD, PFA, and CBA, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PFA demonstrated higher efficacy but also a higher risk of complications compared to HPSD and CBA. HPSD showed greater efficacy with comparable safety to CBA.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16202,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-21\",\"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/s10840-025-02033-8\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-025-02033-8","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparing efficacy and safety between pulsed field ablation, cryoballoon ablation and high-power short duration radiofrequency ablation in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Background: Pulsed field ablation (PFA) and high-power short-duration radiofrequency ablation (HPSD) are emerging techniques for treating atrial fibrillation (AF), offering promising results compared to cryoballoon ablation (CBA). This network meta-analysis aims to evaluates the efficacy and safety of PFA, HPSD, and CBA.
Method: PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched for relevant studies until October 2024. The primary outcome is freedom from atrial arrhythmia. A random-effects model was used for data synthesis, and P-scores were employed for outcome ranking. Point estimation (odd ratios) was calculated for comparisons.
Results: Eighteen studies were included in our network meta-analysis, involving 7,071 atrial fibrillation patients. Among them, 2,023 (29%), 3,725 (53%), and 1,323 (18%) patients underwent PFA, CBA, and HPSD, respectively. PFA demonstrated a higher freedom from atrial arrhythmia, with an odds ratio (OR) of 3.63 (95% CI: 2.95-4.46) compared to CBA and 1.89 (95% CI: 1.47-2.43) compared to HPSD. However, PFA was associated with a higher risk of complications (OR = 6.54, 95% CI: 2.13-20.00) compared to CBA, while HPSD showed an insignificant association with a lower risk of complications compared to CBA (OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.15-2.42). PFA had the shortest procedural time (P-score: 100%), while HPSD had the longest (P-score: 0%). In contrast, HPSD had the shortest fluoroscopic time, with P-scores of 100%, 46%, and 3% for HPSD, PFA, and CBA, respectively.
Conclusion: PFA demonstrated higher efficacy but also a higher risk of complications compared to HPSD and CBA. HPSD showed greater efficacy with comparable safety to CBA.
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
