Safety and myocardio-necrosis laboratory data trend in patients undergoing atrial fibrillation catheter ablation: pulsed field ablation vs. radiofrequency ablation

Abstract

Abstract Background Pulsed Field Ablation (PFA) is an innovative technology to perform atrial fibrillation (AF) catheter ablation. No form of thermal energy is used, but an irreversible electroporation mechanism that causes selective cardiomyocytes death, sparing the cells of adjacent tissues. There are few data in the literature about peri-procedural trend of myocardium-necrosis laboratory data in patients undergoing PFA versus those with radiofrequency (RF). Purpose Compare the short-term safety and the peri-procedural trend of myocardium-necrosis laboratory data in patients undergoing PFA with those undergoing standard-power (40W) RF catheter ablation. Methods 50 patients undergoing paroxysmal AF catheter ablation with pulmonary veins isolation were retrospectively enrolled, 25 treated with PFA and 25 with RF (matched for age, sex, BMI, left atrium size). The PFA protocol involved four two-second deliveries with the penta-spline catheter in the "basket" and in the "flower" configuration; about RF ablation, circular lesions were carried out at the antrum of each pulmonary vein. All patients underwent serial blood samples including troponin I (TnI, n.v. 0-50 ng/L) and CKMB (n.v 0-5 ng/mL) at time 0 and at 3, 24 and 48 post-procedure hours. Complication were evaluated at pre-discharge visit and at 3-month follow-up. Results The clinical and echocardiographic patient’s characteristics are summarized in Table 1. The TnI and CKMB baseline values were within normal range for all patients, both those treated with PFA and those treated with RF, and there were no statistically significant differences between the two group. Regarding the TnI and CKMB values temporal increase, a statistically significant increase was observed in patients treated with PFA (Table 2). The TnI percentage decrease over the 48 hours in RF-treated patients, although not statistically significant, is slower compared to patients treated with PFA. This data could be explained by considering that PFA causes acute damage (myocardiocytes necrosis by electroporation) with less inflammation and a less progressive nature, while RF causes damage with greater irritation and progression (coagulative necrosis) that may result in myocardial necrosis even in the subsequent hours. Despite evidence of greater myocardial necrosis, there were not procedural complications in those treated with PFA. Therefore, the TnI increase is indicative of selective myocardial damage, likely more antral. Conclusion The increase of myocardio-necrosis laboratory data appears to be higher using PFA compared to RF, and it is not associated with greater adverse events. The trend of the myocardio-necrosis laboratory data shows different reduction curves between PFA and RF, probably related to different ablation power source; these data will need to be re-analysed with a greater number of cases.Table 1Table 2