Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a safe and effective technology for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF). Multiple PFA-platforms for AF-ablation have been developed. However, evidence comparing the real-word implementation and performance of different PFA-systems is still limited. This study compares procedural and acute outcome parameters during implementation of the PFA-system employing a pentaspline PFA-catheter (FARAPULSE, Boston Scientific) and a platform using a circular PFA-catheter (PulseSelect, Medtronic). The first consecutive 40 patients treated with each PFA-system were included. Baseline characteristics, procedural parameters and short-term outcome regarding peri-procedural safety and efficacy were evaluated. The majority of patients showed paroxysmal AF, nearly a third of patients in both groups suffered from persistent AF. Overall procedural complication rates were not different between subgroups (circular catheter: 12.5%; pentaspline catheter 7.5%, P=.71), mainly minor (circular catheter: 10.0%; pentaspline catheter: 7.5%, P=1.00). There was no significant difference in median procedure duration (circular catheter: 42.0min; pentaspline catheter: 43.0min, P=.292), LA-dwell-time (circular catheter. 29.0min; pentaspline catheter: 31.0 min, P=.623) and fluoroscopy duration (circular catheter: 13.2 min; pentaspline catheter: 11.9 min, P=.132). With the pentaspline PFA-catheter no learning curve was observed regarding procedural parameters over the course of 40 procedures. With the circular PFA-catheter, there was a statistically significant decrease in LA-dwell-time and fluoroscopy duration comparing the first and last ten procedures. Both PFA-systems could be safely and rapidly implemented into clinical practice of an experienced center. Large-scale clinical trials are needed to compare long-term outcome between different PFA-systems currently introduced into clinical practice.
Read full abstract