Back to Search Start Over

Multielectrode catheter-based pulsed electric field vs. cryoballoon for atrial fibrillation ablation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors :
Vetta, Giampaolo
Rocca, Domenico Giovanni Della
Parlavecchio, Antonio
Magnocavallo, Michele
Sorgente, Antonio
Pannone, Luigi
Monte, Alvise Del
Almorad, Alexandre
Sieira, Juan
Marcon, Lorenzo
Doundoulakis, Ioannis
Mohanty, Sanghamitra
Audiat, Charles
Nakasone, Kazutaka
Bala, Gezim
Ströker, Erwin
Combes, Stéphane
Overeinder, Ingrid
Bianchi, Stefano
Palmisano, Pietro
Source :
EP: Europace; Dec2024, Vol. 26 Issue 12, p1-12, 12p
Publication Year :
2024

Abstract

Aims Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is an innovative technology recently adopted for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). Preclinical and clinical studies have reported a remarkable safety profile, as a result of its tissue-specific effect targeting cardiomyocytes and sparing adjacent tissues. Single-shot pentaspline system was the first PFA device to receive regulatory approval. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of PFA with the single-shot pentaspline system vs. currently available second-/third-/fourth-generation cryoballoon ablation (CRYO) technologies. Methods and results We systematically searched electronic databases for studies focusing on AF ablation employing the PFA single-shot pentaspline system or second-/third-/fourth-generation CRYO technologies. The primary endpoints were acute procedural success assessed on a vein and patient basis. Safety endpoints included overall periprocedural complications and major periprocedural complications. We also compared procedural, fluoroscopy times, and freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmias (ATs) at follow-up (secondary endpoints). Twenty and 70 studies were included for PFA and CRYO, respectively. Pulsed field ablation demonstrated greater acute procedural success on a vein basis (99.9% vs. 99.1%; P < 0.001), as well as per patient (99.5% vs. 98.4%; P < 0.001). Pulsed field ablation yielded lower overall periprocedural complications (3.1% vs. 5.6%; P < 0.001), shorter procedural time (75.9 min vs. 105.6 min; P < 0.001), and fluoroscopy time (14.2 min vs. 18.9 min; P < 0.001) compared with CRYO. No differences were found for major periprocedural complications (1.2% vs. 1.0%; P = 0.46) and freedom from ATs at 1 year (82.3% vs. 80.3%; log-rank P = 0.61). Conclusion Pulsed field ablation contributed to higher acute procedural success and safety compared with CRYO. No statistically significant differences in AT recurrence at 1-year follow-up were observed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
10995129
Volume :
26
Issue :
12
Database :
Complementary Index
Journal :
EP: Europace
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
181894611
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euae293