Dataset Information

Pulsed field ablation selectively spares the oesophagus during pulmonary vein isolation for atrial fibrillation.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

Extra-atrial injury can cause complications after catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF). Pulsed field ablation (PFA) has generated preclinical data suggesting that it selectively targets the myocardium. We sought to characterize extra-atrial injuries after pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) between PFA and thermal ablation methods.

Methods and results

Cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging was performed before, acutely (<3 h) and 3 months post-ablation in 41 paroxysmal AF patients undergoing PVI with PFA (N = 18, Farapulse) or thermal methods (N = 23, 16 radiofrequency, 7 cryoballoon). Oesophageal and aortic injuries were assessed by using late gadolinium-enhanced (LGE) imaging. Phrenic nerve injuries were assessed from diaphragmatic motion on intra-procedural fluoroscopy. Baseline CMR showed no abnormality on the oesophagus or aorta. During ablation procedures, no patient showed phrenic palsy. Acutely, thermal methods induced high rates of oesophageal lesions (43%), all observed in patients showing direct contact between the oesophagus and the ablation sites. In contrast, oesophageal lesions were observed in no patient ablated with PFA (0%, P < 0.001 vs. thermal methods), despite similar rates of direct contact between the oesophagus and the ablation sites (P = 0.41). Acute lesions were detected on CMR on the descending aorta in 10/23 (43%) after thermal ablation, and in 6/18 (33%) after PFA (P = 0.52). CMR at 3 months showed a complete resolution of oesophageal and aortic LGE in all patients. No patient showed clinical complications.

Conclusion

PFA does not induce any signs of oesophageal injury on CMR after PVI. Due to its tissue selectivity, PFA may improve safety for catheter ablation of AF.

SUBMITTER: Cochet H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8427383 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionPulsed field ablation (PFA) was recently introduced for the treatment of symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) with the claim of selectively ablating the myocardium while sparing surrounding tissues. We present our initial experience with a PFA catheter for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) and describe procedural findings and peri-procedural safety of the first 100 patients.Materials and methodsWe investigated 100 patients treated for symptomatic AF using the FARAWAVE PFA catheter (Farapulse, Menlo Park, CA, USA) between July 2021 and March 2022. Procedure workflow and electrophysiological findings at the time of ablation, peri-procedural complications, and operator learning curves are described.ResultsThe mean age of patients was 62.9 ± 9.4 years, 62% were male subjects and 80% had paroxysmal AF. The median CHA2DS2-VASc score was 1.5 (IQR: 1.0-2.0) and the mean left atrial volume index was 35.7 ± 9.6 ml/m2. In 88 (88%) patients, PVI alone was performed and in 12 (12%) patients additional ablation of the posterior wall was performed. 3D-electroanatomic mapping was performed in 18 (18%) patients. Procedures without mapping lasted for 52.3 ± 16.6 min. The mean number of applications per pulmonary vein (PV) was 8.1 ± 0.6. In all patients (100%), all PVs were confirmed to be isolated. The learning curves of the two operators who performed > 20 procedures showed a negligible variation of performance over time and practice did not significantly predict procedure time [Operator 1 (senior): R 2 = 0.034, p = 0.35; Operator 2 (junior): R 2 = 0.004, p = 0.73]. There was no difference between the procedure times between senior and junior operators (Operator 1: 46.9 ± 9.7 min vs. Operator 2: 45.9 ± 9.9 min; p = 0.73). The only complications observed were two cases of bleeding at the site of percutaneous access.ConclusionOur initial experience shows that use of the PFA catheter for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is safe, fast, and easy to learn.

Project description:IntroductionCryoballoon ablation (CBA) is a standard catheter ablation technology with demonstrated clinical effectiveness for the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF); however, it can be associated with major adverse events, including phrenic nerve paralysis. Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a novel, minimally thermal technology with comparable effectiveness and low safety risk. This study aimed to compare the safety profiles of PFA and CBA through critical analyses of the literature and indirect treatment comparisons.MethodsStudies were identified by searching the MEDLINE database and the Clinicaltrials.gov registry. Registered clinical trials and/or Food and Drug Administration Investigation Device Exemption (FDA IDE) studies evaluating PFA or CBA in adult patients with drug-refractory PAF between January 2008 and March 2023 were selected. Comparative safety between PFA and CBA was assessed for major and prespecified adverse events. Indirect comparisons were conducted using the proportion of patients experiencing adverse events and confirmed with single-arm meta-analyses and sensitivity analyses.ResultsData were extracted from three PFA publications including a total of 497 patients and six CBA studies including a total of 1113 patients. The analysis revealed that PFA was associated with significantly lower risk of major adverse events {risk difference - 4.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) - 5.8, - 2.8]; risk ratio 0.16 [95% CI 0.07, 0.45]} and prespecified adverse events [risk difference - 2.5% (95% CI - 4.4, - 0.5); risk ratio 0.53 (95% CI 0.31, 0.96)]. Meta-analyses confirmed the lower rate of major adverse events for PFA [0.4% (95% CI 0.0, 1.3)] vs. CBA [5.6% (95% CI 2.6, 8.6)] and prespecified adverse events for PFA [2.7% (95% CI 1.2, 4.1)] vs. CBA [5.8% (95% CI 2.7, 9.0)]. Sensitivity analyses exploring heterogeneity across studies confirmed robustness of the main analyses.ConclusionThe findings of this study show that PFA has a more favorable safety profile than CBA, with significantly lower risks of major and prespecified adverse events. These indirect comparisons help contextualize the safety of PFA compared to CBA for the treatment of drug-refractory PAF in the absence of head-to-head studies.