Comparison of pulsed field ablation and cryoballoon ablation for pulmonary vein isolation

Pulsed field ablation and cryoballoon ablation for pulmonary vein isolation: insights on efficacy, safety and cardiac function

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) has become the cornerstone treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). While in cryoablation cell damage is caused by thermal effects, lately, pulsed field ablation (PFA) has been established as a novel non-thermal tissue-specific ablation modality for PVI. However, data comparing outcomes of patients undergoing either PFA or cryoballoon ablation (CBA) for primary PVI are sparse.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with AF undergoing PVI by either CBA or PFA were included in the analysis. The primary outcome was the time to AF/AT recurrence. For secondary outcomes, clinical and periprocedural parameters were compared.

RESULTS

In total, outcomes of 141 AF patients treated by PFA (94 patients) or CBA (47 patients) were compared. After 365 days, 70% of patients in the PFA group and 61% of patients in the CBA group were free from AF/AT (HR 1.35, 95% CI 0.60-3.00; p = 0.470). No deaths occurred. While symptoms alleviated in both groups, only after PFA, we observed significant improvement of left atrial volume index (PFA group baseline: 40 [31;62] ml/m2, PFA group follow-up: 35 [29;49] ml/m2; p = 0.015), NT-pro BNP levels (PFA group baseline: 1106 ± 2479 pg/ml, PFA group follow-up: 1033 ± 1742 pg/ml; p = 0.048), and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (PFA group baseline: 55 [48;60] %, PFA group follow-up: 58 [54;63] %; p = 0.006). PVI by PFA was the only independent predictor of LVEF improvement.

CONCLUSION

In our study, we show that CBA and PFA for PVI are of similar efficacy when it comes to AF recurrence. However, our findings suggest that PFA rather than CBA might induce left atrial reverse remodeling thereby contributing to left ventricular systolic function.

Pulsed-field ablation versus thermal ablation for atrial fibrillation: A meta-analysis

Background

Pulsed-field ablation (PFA) is an alternative to thermal ablation (TA) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) receiving catheter-based therapy for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). However, its efficacy and safety have yet to be fully elucidated.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to compare the acute and long-term efficacies and safety of PFA and TA.

Methods

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials comparing PFA and TA in patients with AF undergoing their first PVI ablation. The TA group was divided into cryoballoon (CB) and radiofrequency subgroups. AF patients were divided into paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) and persistent atrial fibrillation (PersAF) subgroups for further analysis.

Results

Eighteen studies involving 4998 patients (35.2% PFA) were included. Overall, PFA was associated with a shorter procedure time (mean difference [MD] -21.68; 95% confidence interval [CI] -32.81 to -10.54) but longer fluoroscopy time (MD 4.53; 95% CI 2.18-6.88) than TA. Regarding safety, lower (peri-)esophageal injury rates (odds ratio [OR] 0.17; 95% CI 0.06-0.46) and higher tamponade rates (OR 2.98; 95% CI 1.27-7.00) were observed after PFA. In efficacy assessment, PFA was associated with a better first-pass isolation rate (OR 6.82; 95% CI 1.37-34.01) and a lower treatment failure rate (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.70-0.98). Subgroup analysis showed no differences in PersAF and PAF. CB was related to higher (peri)esophageal injury, and lower PVI acute success and procedural time.

Conclusion

Compared to TA, PFA showed better results with regard to acute and long-term efficacy but significant differences in safety, with lower (peri)esophageal injury rates but higher tamponade rates in procedural data.

Meta-analysis of pulsed-field ablation versus cryoablation for atrial fibrillation

PURPOSE

The available data on the treatment strategy of pulsed field ablation (PFA) for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is limited. This study aims to provide a comparative analysis of the efficacy, safety, and procedural efficiency between PFA and cryoballoon ablation (CBA) for AF.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search of the EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases to identify trials comparing PFA with CBA for AF from their inception until December 2023. The odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD), along with a 95% confidence interval (CI), were utilized as measures of treatment effect.

RESULTS

The analysis included 15 eligible trials with a total enrollment of 1880 patients. No significant differences were found in recurrent atrial arrhythmia (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.64, 1.07) or periprocedural complications (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.46, 1.30) between the two ablation techniques examined in this study. However, the PFA technique demonstrated a significantly shorter procedure time (MD -7.17, 95% CI -13.60, -0.73), but a longer fluoroscopy time (MD 2.53, 95% CI 0.87, 4.19). Similarly, PFA was found to be significantly associated with a decreased incidence of phrenic nerve palsy (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07, 0.59), but an increased incidence of cardiac tamponade (OR 4.07, 95% CI 1.15, 14.39). Moreover, there was a significantly higher release of troponin with PFA compared to CBA (MD 470.28, 95% CI 18.89, 921.67), while the increase in S100 protein and heart rate was significantly lower with PFA than with CBA (MD -64.41, 95% CI -105.46, -17.36), (MD -8.76, 95% CI -15.12, -2.40).

CONCLUSION

The utilization of PFA provides a safer, time-saving, and tissue-specific procedure compared to CBA, while maintaining comparable success rates. This has the potential to enhance procedural efficiency and optimize resource utilization in clinical practice. These findings underscore the feasibility and promise of PFA as an alternative technique for PVI in patients with AF.

Efficacy and safety of pulsed field ablation compared to cryoballoon ablation in the treatment of atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis

Aims

Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) represents the gold standard in the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) and the use of single-shot techniques, such as cryoballoon ablation (CBA) and pulsed field ablation (PFA) using a pentaspline catheter, has gained prominence. Recent studies hypothesize that PFA might be superior to CBA, although procedural efficacy and safety data are inconsistent. A meta-analysis was conducted to compare both energy sources for the treatment of AF.

Methods and results

A structured systematic database search and meta-analysis were performed on studies investigating outcomes, periprocedural complications, and/or procedural parameters of AF patients treated by either CBA or PFA. Eleven studies reporting data from 3805 patients were included. Pulmonary vein isolation by PFA was associated with a significantly lower recurrence of atrial fibrillation/atrial tachycardia [odds ratio (OR) = 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.54-0.98, I2 = 20%] and fewer periprocedural complications (OR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.40-0.96, I2 = 6%) compared to CBA. The lower complication rate following PFA was mainly driven by fewer phrenic nerve injuries (OR = 0.19, 95% CI = 0.08-0.43, I2 = 0%). However, there were more cases of cardiac tamponades after PFA (OR = 2.56, 95% CI = 1.01-6.49, I2 = 0%). Additionally, using PFA for PVI was associated with shorter total procedure times [mean difference (MD) = -9.68, 95% CI = -14.92 to -4.43 min, I2 = 92%] and lower radiation exposure (MD = -148.07, 95% CI = -276.50 to -19.64 µGy·mI2 = 7%).

Conclusion

Our results suggest that PFA for PVI, compared to CBA, enables shorter procedure times with lower arrhythmia recurrence and a reduced risk of periprocedural complications. Randomized controlled trials need to confirm our findings.