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:ObjectiveCurrently radiofrequency and cryoballoon ablations are the two standard ablation systems used for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation; however, there is no universal consensus on which ablation is the optimal choice. We therefore sought to undertake a meta-analysis with special emphases on comparing the efficacy and safety between cryoballoon and radiofrequency ablations by synthesizing published clinical trials.Methods and resultsArticles were identified by searching the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases before September 2013, by reviewing the bibliographies of eligible reports, and by consulting with experts in this field. Data were extracted independently and in duplicate. There were respectively 469 and 635 patients referred for cryoballoon and radiofrequency ablations from 14 qualified clinical trials. Overall analyses indicated that cryoballoon ablation significantly reduced fluoroscopic time and total procedure time by a weighted mean of 14.13 (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 2.82 to 25.45; P = 0.014) minutes and 29.65 (95% CI: 8.54 to 50.77; P = 0.006) minutes compared with radiofrequency ablation, respectively, whereas ablation time in cryoballoon ablation was nonsignificantly elongated by a weighted mean of 11.66 (95% CI: -10.71 to 34.04; P = 0.307) minutes. Patients referred for cryoballoon ablation had a high yet nonsignificant success rate of catheter ablation compared with cryoballoon ablation (odds ratio; 95% CI; P: 1.34; 0.53 to 3.36; 0.538), and cryoballoon ablation was also found to be associated with the relatively low risk of having recurrent atrial fibrillation (0.75; 0.3 to 1.88; 0.538) and major complications (0.46; 0.11 to 1.83; 0.269). There was strong evidence of heterogeneity and low probability of publication bias.ConclusionOur findings demonstrate greater improvement in fluoroscopic time and total procedure duration for atrial fibrillation patients referred for cryoballoon ablation than those for radiofrequency ablation.