Pentaspline Pulsed Field Ablation Catheter Versus Cryoballoon for Atrial Fibrillation Ablation: Results From a Prospective Comparative Study

Abstract

Background Cryoballoon ablation is currently the gold standard technique for single‐shot pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). Pulsed field ablation (PFA) has recently emerged as an interesting nonthermal alternative energy for PVI. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the safety and long‐term efficacy of PVI using the pentaspline PFA catheter in comparison to cryoballoon ablation. Methods and Results Between January 2021 and December 2022, we included all consecutive patients of our center in whom a first PVI‐only procedure was performed using PFA or cryoballoon. The choice of the energy was based on patients' preference between general anesthesia (PFA) and local anesthesia (cryoballoon). The primary end point was freedom from documented atrial arrhythmia recurrence after a 3‐month blanking period. A total of 301 patients (paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in 220 patients) underwent a first PVI procedure performed using PFA (n=151) or cryoballoon (n=150). Complete short‐term PVI was obtained in 144 of 150 patients (96%) in the cryoballoon group and in all patients of the PFA group (P=0.01). Procedure duration was significantly longer in the cryoballoon group. Transient and persistent phrenic nerve injuries were observed in the cryoballoon group only (13/150 and 2/150, respectively). One‐year freedom from atrial arrhythmia was significantly higher in the PFA group compared with the cryoballoon group (87.9% versus 77.7%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.30–0.96]; P=0.037). Conclusions This prospective, comparative, real‐life study suggested that PFA could overcome safety limitations of cryoballoon with optimal effectiveness. Randomized controlled studies are required to further investigate the potential superiority of PFA over cryoballoon.

Keywords

• atrial fibrillation
• catheter ablation
• cryoballoon ablation
• pulmonary vein isolation
• pulsed field ablation