Efficacy, safety, and somatosensory comparison of pulsed-field ablation and thermal ablation: outcomes from a 2-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND

Pulsed-field ablation (PFA), as a nonthermal ablative approach for atrial fibrillation, has attracted much attention in recent years. And there are few comparative studies on PFA versus conventional thermal ablation, including radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and cryoballoon ablation (CBA). The efficacy, safety, and somatic sensation of PFA and thermal ablation need to be further compared.

METHODS

A total of 109 patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation were divided into three groups (27 in the PFA group, 41 in the CBA group, and 41 in the RFA group), and the operation characteristics, efficacy, safety, and somatic sensation were recorded and analyzed. All patients were followed for 2 years.

RESULTS

All pulmonary veins were successfully isolated except for 1 pulmonary vein that was not successfully isolated during the CBA process (PFA vs. CBA vs. RFA = 100% vs. 99% vs. 100%). The total operation time for PFA is considerably shorter than that for thermal ablation (PFA vs. CBA vs. RFA = 65.28 ± 22.78 min vs. 75.38 ± 18.53 min vs. 96.26 ± 23.23 min, P < 0.001), and the same applies to all the sub-phases. PFA was similarly more dominant in terms of somatosensory perception, mainly in headache (PFA vs. CBA = 1.17 ± 0.48 vs. 2.31 ± 1.06, P < 0.001) and chest pain (PFA vs. RFA = 1.45 ± 0.88 vs. 2.52 ± 1.06, P < 0.001). All these three groups demonstrated good maintenance rates (PFA vs. CBA vs. RFA = 85.00% vs. 80.49% vs. 78.05%, 2 years after operation).

CONCLUSION

PFA demonstrates its excellent somatic sensation and favorable safety. And it also showed a great immediate success and maintenance rate, which is not inferior to thermal ablation.