AIMS: Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is an innovative technology recently adopted for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). Preclinical and clinical studies have reported a remarkable safety profile, as a result of its tissue-specific effect targeting cardiomyocytes and sparing adjacent tissues. Single-shot pentaspline system was the first PFA device to receive regulatory approval. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of PFA with the single-shot pentaspline system vs. currently available second-/third-/fourth-generation cryoballoon ablation (CRYO) technologies. METHODS AND RESULTS: We systematically searched electronic databases for studies focusing on AF ablation employing the PFA single-shot pentaspline system or second-/third-/fourth-generation CRYO technologies. The primary endpoints were acute procedural success assessed on a vein and patient basis. Safety endpoints included overall periprocedural complications and major periprocedural complications. We also compared procedural, fluoroscopy times, and freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmias (ATs) at follow-up (secondary endpoints). Twenty and 70 studies were included for PFA and CRYO, respectively. Pulsed field ablation demonstrated greater acute procedural success on a vein basis (99.9% vs. 99.1%; P < 0.001), as well as per patient (99.5% vs. 98.4%; P < 0.001). Pulsed field ablation yielded lower overall periprocedural complications (3.1% vs. 5.6%; P < 0.001), shorter procedural time (75.9 min vs. 105.6 min; P < 0.001), and fluoroscopy time (14.2 min vs. 18.9 min; P < 0.001) compared with CRYO. No differences were found for major periprocedural complications (1.2% vs. 1.0%; P = 0.46) and freedom from ATs at 1 year (82.3% vs. 80.3%; log-rank P = 0.61). CONCLUSION: Pulsed field ablation contributed to higher acute procedural success and safety compared with CRYO. No statistically significant differences in AT recurrence at 1-year follow-up were observed.

Vetta, G., Della Rocca, D.g., Parlavecchio, A., Magnocavallo, M., Sorgente, A., Pannone, L., et al. (2024). Multielectrode catheter-based pulsed electric field vs. cryoballoon for atrial fibrillation ablation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. EUROPACE, 26(12) [10.1093/europace/euae293].

Multielectrode catheter-based pulsed electric field vs. cryoballoon for atrial fibrillation ablation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Natale, Andrea;
2024-12-03

Abstract

AIMS: Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is an innovative technology recently adopted for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). Preclinical and clinical studies have reported a remarkable safety profile, as a result of its tissue-specific effect targeting cardiomyocytes and sparing adjacent tissues. Single-shot pentaspline system was the first PFA device to receive regulatory approval. We performed a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of PFA with the single-shot pentaspline system vs. currently available second-/third-/fourth-generation cryoballoon ablation (CRYO) technologies. METHODS AND RESULTS: We systematically searched electronic databases for studies focusing on AF ablation employing the PFA single-shot pentaspline system or second-/third-/fourth-generation CRYO technologies. The primary endpoints were acute procedural success assessed on a vein and patient basis. Safety endpoints included overall periprocedural complications and major periprocedural complications. We also compared procedural, fluoroscopy times, and freedom from atrial tachyarrhythmias (ATs) at follow-up (secondary endpoints). Twenty and 70 studies were included for PFA and CRYO, respectively. Pulsed field ablation demonstrated greater acute procedural success on a vein basis (99.9% vs. 99.1%; P < 0.001), as well as per patient (99.5% vs. 98.4%; P < 0.001). Pulsed field ablation yielded lower overall periprocedural complications (3.1% vs. 5.6%; P < 0.001), shorter procedural time (75.9 min vs. 105.6 min; P < 0.001), and fluoroscopy time (14.2 min vs. 18.9 min; P < 0.001) compared with CRYO. No differences were found for major periprocedural complications (1.2% vs. 1.0%; P = 0.46) and freedom from ATs at 1 year (82.3% vs. 80.3%; log-rank P = 0.61). CONCLUSION: Pulsed field ablation contributed to higher acute procedural success and safety compared with CRYO. No statistically significant differences in AT recurrence at 1-year follow-up were observed.
3-dic-2024
Pubblicato
Rilevanza internazionale
Articolo
Esperti anonimi
Settore MEDS-13/C - Chirurgia cardiaca
English
Ablation
Atrial fibrillation
Catheter ablation
Cryoballoon ablation
Pulmonary vein isolation
Pulsed field ablation
Vetta, G., Della Rocca, D.g., Parlavecchio, A., Magnocavallo, M., Sorgente, A., Pannone, L., et al. (2024). Multielectrode catheter-based pulsed electric field vs. cryoballoon for atrial fibrillation ablation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. EUROPACE, 26(12) [10.1093/europace/euae293].
Vetta, G; Della Rocca, Dg; Parlavecchio, A; Magnocavallo, M; Sorgente, A; Pannone, L; Del Monte, A; Almorad, A; Sieira, J; Marcon, L; Doundoulakis, I;...espandi
Articolo su rivista
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Natale.9.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 1.49 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.49 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2108/402803
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 12
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 12
social impact