Ahmed Mazen Amin, Mustafa Turkmani, Saman Al Barznji, Sanghamitra Mohanty, Rachel M Kaplan, Jeffrey Winterfield, Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, Pasquale Santangeli, Luigi Di Biase, Andrea Natale
{"title":"脉冲场与高功率短时间消融术治疗心房颤动的疗效和安全性:基于重构时间-事件数据的系统回顾和荟萃分析","authors":"Ahmed Mazen Amin, Mustafa Turkmani, Saman Al Barznji, Sanghamitra Mohanty, Rachel M Kaplan, Jeffrey Winterfield, Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, Pasquale Santangeli, Luigi Di Biase, Andrea Natale","doi":"10.1111/jce.16728","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pulsed-field ablation (PFA) and high-power short-duration (HPSD) ablation (45-90 W) are emerging technologies in atrial fibrillation (AF) treatment, both achieving durable pulmonary vein isolation. We aim to investigate the efficacy and safety of PFA versus HPSD ablation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We comprehensively searched PubMed, Web of Science (WOS), Scopus, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) through July 2024. Pairwise meta-analysis with reconstructed time-to-event analysis were performed using R version 4.3.1 (PROSPERO ID: CRD42024576031).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven observational studies, including 1904 patients, were included. PFA was significantly associated with lower atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence compared to HPSD ablation (45-90 W) at the longest follow-up (RR: 0.73, 95% CI [0.60, 0.88], p < 0.01). Subgroup analysis revealed a significant reduction in atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence with PFA versus HPSD ablation (45-50 W) (RR: 0.69, 95% CI [0.54, 0.88], p < 0.01), but not compared to vHPSD ablation (70-90 W). Reconnected pulmonary vein rates were significantly lower with PFA compared to HPSD (45-50 W) (p = 0.03), while no significant difference was observed compared to vHPSD (70-90 W). PFA was significantly associated with reduced procedural duration (MD: -33.15 with 95% CI [-40.93, -25.36], p < 0.01) and left atrial dwell time (MD: -32.16 with 95% CI [-45.55, -18.77], p < 0.01), although fluoroscopy time increased (MD: 7.48 with 95% CI [4.29, 10.68], p < 0.01) compared to HPSD ablation (45-90 W). Safety profiles were comparable, but pericarditis rates were significantly lower with PFA versus HPSD (45-50 W) (p = 0.003) and vHPSD (70-90 W) (p = 0.019). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a 28% lower risk of atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence with PFA compared to HPSD ablation (45-90 W) (HR: 0.72, 95% CI [0.57, 0.91], p = 0.006) over an 18-month follow-up.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PFA and HPSD ablation (45-90 W) are effective and safe for AF ablation. PFA was significantly associated with lower atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence, shorter procedural duration, reduced left atrial dwell time, increased fluoroscopy time, and comparable safety, with lower rates of pericarditis compared to HPSD ablation.</p>","PeriodicalId":15178,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy and Safety of Pulsed-Field Versus High-Power Short-Duration Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis With Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data.\",\"authors\":\"Ahmed Mazen Amin, Mustafa Turkmani, Saman Al Barznji, Sanghamitra Mohanty, Rachel M Kaplan, Jeffrey Winterfield, Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, Pasquale Santangeli, Luigi Di Biase, Andrea Natale\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jce.16728\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pulsed-field ablation (PFA) and high-power short-duration (HPSD) ablation (45-90 W) are emerging technologies in atrial fibrillation (AF) treatment, both achieving durable pulmonary vein isolation. We aim to investigate the efficacy and safety of PFA versus HPSD ablation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We comprehensively searched PubMed, Web of Science (WOS), Scopus, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) through July 2024. Pairwise meta-analysis with reconstructed time-to-event analysis were performed using R version 4.3.1 (PROSPERO ID: CRD42024576031).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seven observational studies, including 1904 patients, were included. PFA was significantly associated with lower atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence compared to HPSD ablation (45-90 W) at the longest follow-up (RR: 0.73, 95% CI [0.60, 0.88], p < 0.01). Subgroup analysis revealed a significant reduction in atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence with PFA versus HPSD ablation (45-50 W) (RR: 0.69, 95% CI [0.54, 0.88], p < 0.01), but not compared to vHPSD ablation (70-90 W). Reconnected pulmonary vein rates were significantly lower with PFA compared to HPSD (45-50 W) (p = 0.03), while no significant difference was observed compared to vHPSD (70-90 W). PFA was significantly associated with reduced procedural duration (MD: -33.15 with 95% CI [-40.93, -25.36], p < 0.01) and left atrial dwell time (MD: -32.16 with 95% CI [-45.55, -18.77], p < 0.01), although fluoroscopy time increased (MD: 7.48 with 95% CI [4.29, 10.68], p < 0.01) compared to HPSD ablation (45-90 W). Safety profiles were comparable, but pericarditis rates were significantly lower with PFA versus HPSD (45-50 W) (p = 0.003) and vHPSD (70-90 W) (p = 0.019). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a 28% lower risk of atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence with PFA compared to HPSD ablation (45-90 W) (HR: 0.72, 95% CI [0.57, 0.91], p = 0.006) over an 18-month follow-up.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PFA and HPSD ablation (45-90 W) are effective and safe for AF ablation. PFA was significantly associated with lower atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence, shorter procedural duration, reduced left atrial dwell time, increased fluoroscopy time, and comparable safety, with lower rates of pericarditis compared to HPSD ablation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15178,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-28\",\"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.16728\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.16728","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
摘要
背景:脉冲场消融(PFA)和高功率短时间消融(HPSD) (45- 90w)是心房颤动(AF)治疗中的新兴技术,两者都能实现持久的肺静脉隔离。我们的目的是研究PFA与HPSD消融的有效性和安全性。方法:综合检索PubMed、Web of Science (WOS)、Scopus、EMBASE和Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Central),检索截止至2024年7月。使用R 4.3.1版本(PROSPERO ID: CRD42024576031)进行两两荟萃分析和重构事件时间分析。结果:纳入了7项观察性研究,包括1904例患者。与HPSD消融(45-90 W)相比,PFA与房颤复发率显著降低相关(RR: 0.73, 95% CI [0.60, 0.88], p)。结论:PFA和HPSD消融(45-90 W)对房颤消融有效且安全。与HPSD消融相比,PFA与较低的房性心动过速复发率、较短的手术时间、缩短的左房停留时间、增加的透视时间和相当的安全性显著相关,心包炎发生率较低。
Efficacy and Safety of Pulsed-Field Versus High-Power Short-Duration Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis With Reconstructed Time-to-Event Data.
Background: Pulsed-field ablation (PFA) and high-power short-duration (HPSD) ablation (45-90 W) are emerging technologies in atrial fibrillation (AF) treatment, both achieving durable pulmonary vein isolation. We aim to investigate the efficacy and safety of PFA versus HPSD ablation.
Methods: We comprehensively searched PubMed, Web of Science (WOS), Scopus, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) through July 2024. Pairwise meta-analysis with reconstructed time-to-event analysis were performed using R version 4.3.1 (PROSPERO ID: CRD42024576031).
Results: Seven observational studies, including 1904 patients, were included. PFA was significantly associated with lower atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence compared to HPSD ablation (45-90 W) at the longest follow-up (RR: 0.73, 95% CI [0.60, 0.88], p < 0.01). Subgroup analysis revealed a significant reduction in atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence with PFA versus HPSD ablation (45-50 W) (RR: 0.69, 95% CI [0.54, 0.88], p < 0.01), but not compared to vHPSD ablation (70-90 W). Reconnected pulmonary vein rates were significantly lower with PFA compared to HPSD (45-50 W) (p = 0.03), while no significant difference was observed compared to vHPSD (70-90 W). PFA was significantly associated with reduced procedural duration (MD: -33.15 with 95% CI [-40.93, -25.36], p < 0.01) and left atrial dwell time (MD: -32.16 with 95% CI [-45.55, -18.77], p < 0.01), although fluoroscopy time increased (MD: 7.48 with 95% CI [4.29, 10.68], p < 0.01) compared to HPSD ablation (45-90 W). Safety profiles were comparable, but pericarditis rates were significantly lower with PFA versus HPSD (45-50 W) (p = 0.003) and vHPSD (70-90 W) (p = 0.019). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a 28% lower risk of atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence with PFA compared to HPSD ablation (45-90 W) (HR: 0.72, 95% CI [0.57, 0.91], p = 0.006) over an 18-month follow-up.
Conclusion: PFA and HPSD ablation (45-90 W) are effective and safe for AF ablation. PFA was significantly associated with lower atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence, shorter procedural duration, reduced left atrial dwell time, increased fluoroscopy time, and comparable safety, with lower rates of pericarditis compared to HPSD ablation.
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.