A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Indirect treatment comparison of two pulsed field ablation systems for the treatment of persistent atrial fibrillation. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Background: Catheter ablation is beneficial in patients with symptomatic persistent atrial fibrillation (PerAF), and pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a promising energy source to safely and durably create ablation lesions. However, catheter-specific "PFA waveforms and designs" result in effectiveness and safety profiles that are not transferable to other PFA technologies. A head-to-head comparison between the dual-energy, wide-footprint lattice-tip (Sphere-9, Medtronic) and pentaspline PFA catheter (Farawave, Boston Scientific) is not yet available. Consequently, this study aims to perform an indirect treatment comparison (ITC).

Methods: Outcomes (efficacy, safety, and procedure times) between the SPHERE Per-AF trial (N = 212; NCT05120193) and ADVANTAGE AF trial (N = 260; NCT05443594) studies were compared using matched-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) methods. Matching was performed based on subjects' baseline characteristics.

Results: After matching, SPHERE Per-AF showed a higher probability (OR 0.51 (95% CI:0.32 - 0.80), p = 0.003) of 12-month freedom from arrhythmias (77.4%) compared to ADVANTAGE AF (63.5%). There was no evidence of adjusted probability of a primary safety difference (OR 0.76 (95% CI:0.17 - 3.42), p = 0.72) between trials (1.8% vs. 2.3%, respectively). Adjusted procedure and pulmonary vein isolation time were comparable, but fluoroscopy time was significantly shorter in SPHERE Per-AF compared to ADVANTAGE AF (-14.4 min (95% CI:-16.2, -12.5); p < 0.01).

Conclusion: PFA is generally safe and efficient; however, in this ITC, SPHERE Per-AF showed a higher probability of treatment success in PerAF patients compared to ADVANTAGE AF. Overall, these results underline possible differences even amongst PFA systems, which must be validated in randomized trials. Until then, MAIC methods fill the current evidence gap. Registry and the Registration No. SPHERE Per-AF: NCT05120193 and ADVANTAGE AF: NCT05443594.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10840-025-02124-6DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

sphere per-af
12
indirect treatment
8
treatment comparison
8
pulsed field
8
field ablation
8
persistent atrial
8
atrial fibrillation
8
compared advantage
8
comparison
4
comparison pulsed
4

Similar Publications