98%
921
2 minutes
20
Background: Pulsed-field ablation (PFA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) offers several advantages compared to thermal ablation, however direct comparisons of patient-reported outcomes after PFA and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) are limited. This study aimed to assess patient experience following PFA or RFA in AF ablation performed under general anesthesia.
Methods: A retrospective study across a single integrated health system was conducted on consecutive patients who underwent PFA or RFA for AF under general anesthesia from March 2024 to December 2024. Data were collected from electronic medical records. Primary endpoints included postprocedural pain complaints and scores, need for postprocedure analgesic medication, and frequency of emergency department (ED) visits for procedure-related concerns.
Results: Two hundred patients (100 PFA and 100 RFA) were analyzed (age 73.2 ± 9.2 y, 38% female). Patients undergoing RFA had a significantly higher rate of ED visits compared to those who underwent PFA (17% vs. 6%, p < 0.05). The most common complaints prompting RFA ED visits were shortness of breath (29% of RFA ED visits), palpitations (23% of RFA ED visits), dizziness (18% of RFA ED visits), and other (30% of RFA ED visits). There were no statistically significant differences in postprocedural pain scores (RFA 1.70 vs. PFA 1.57, p = 0.61), requests for analgesic medications in the recovery area (RFA 36% vs. PFA 27%, p = 0.26), nor encounters made to the care team within 4 weeks following the procedure (RFA 57% vs. PFA 44%, p = 0.20).
Conclusion: In this retrospective study, patients undergoing PFA for AF under general anesthesia experienced fewer ED visits for procedure-related issues compared to those undergoing RFA. While these clinical endpoints potentially suggest improved procedural recovery with PFA compared to RFA, larger prospective studies using patient-reported outcome measures are warranted.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jce.70077 | DOI Listing |
Europace
September 2025
Department of Cardiology and Vascular Medicine, University Heart and Vascular Center Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Background And Aims: Aim of this study was to assess the risk of hemolysis, the extent of myocardial and neural injury after monopolar, monophasic pulsed field ablation (PFA) using a lattice-tip catheter in comparison to single-shot PF ablation platforms employing bipolar, biphasic waveforms.
Methods: This prospective study included consecutive patients undergoing PFA for atrial fibrillation (AF) using the Affera™ mapping and ablation system (n=40). Biomarkers for hemolysis (haptoglobin, LDH, bilirubin), myocardial injury (high-sensitive troponin T, CK, CK-MB), neurocardiac injury (S100), and renal function (creatinine) were assessed pre- and within 24 hours post-ablation.
Kardiol Pol
September 2025
Department of Cardiology, Stefan Cardinal Wyszynski Province Specialist Hospital, Lublin, Poland.
Eur Heart J Case Rep
September 2025
Clinical Electrophysiology, St. Joseph's Heart Rhythm Center, Anny Jagiellonki 17, 35-623 Rzeszów, Poland.
Background: Premature ventricular contractions (PVCs) originating from the infundibular region of the right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) may be challenging to ablate due to thin myocardial wall and proximity to the coronary arteries in this region. In such anatomically sensitive regions, the use of radiofrequency (RF) energy may carry a risk of collateral injury or prove ineffective. We present a case report describing successful ablation of infundibular PVCs using pulsed field ablation (PFA).
View Article and Find Full Text PDFHeart Rhythm O2
August 2025
Heart Rhythm Center, Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Sendai Kosei Hospital, Tsutsumidori-Amamiyamachi, Aoba-ku, Sendai-shi, Miyagi, Japan.
Heart Rhythm O2
August 2025
Helmsley Electrophysiology Center, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York.