Efficacy and safety of pulmonary vein isolation with pulsed field ablation vs. novel cryoballoon ablation system for atrial fibrillation

Abstract

Aims: Pulsed-field ablation (PFA) has emerged as a novel treatment technology for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Cryoballoon (CB) is the most frequently used single shot technology. A direct comparison to a novel CB system is lacking. We aimed to compare pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) using PFA vs. a novel CB system regarding efficiency, safety, myocardial injury, and outcomes.

Methods and results: One hundred and eighty-one consecutive patients underwent PVI and were included (age 64 ± 9.7 years, ejection fraction 0.58 ± 0.09, left atrial size 40 ± 6.4 mm, paroxysmal AF 64%). 106 patients (59%) underwent PFA (FARAPULSE, Boston Scientific) and 75 patients (41%) underwent CB ablation (PolarX, Boston Scientific). The median procedure time, left atrial dwell time and fluoroscopic time were similar between the PFA and the CB group with 55 [interquartile range (IQR) 43-64] min vs. 58 (IQR 48-69) min (P < 0.087), 38 (30-49) min vs. 37 (31-48) min, (P = 0.871), and 11 (IQR 9.3-14) min vs. 11 (IQR 8.7-16) min, (P < 0.81), respectively. Three procedural complications were observed in the PFA group (two tamponades, one temporary ST elevation) and three complications in the CB group (3× reversible phrenic nerve palsies). During the median follow-up of 404 days (IQR 208-560), AF recurrence was similar in the PFA group and the CB group with 24 vs. 30%, P = 0.406.

Conclusion: Procedural characteristics were very similar between PFA and CB in regard to procedure duration fluoroscopy time and complications. Atrial fibrillation free survival did not differ between the PFA and CB groups.

Keywords: Atrial fibrillation; Cryoballoon; Pulmonary vein isolation; Pulsed field ablation.