Safety and Efficacy of Pulse Field Ablation in the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation and Its Comparison with Traditional Thermal Ablation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pulsed field ablation (PFA) and to compare it with the efficacy and safety of traditional thermal ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were searched for randomized or observational studies exploring the efficacy and safety of PFA and comparing PFA with traditional thermal ablation in patients with AF. Results: A total of 4437 patients from 16 studies that only included PFA as the ablation method and 1792 patients from 9 comparing PFA to traditional thermal ablation were included in the final analysis. In studies that considered PFA alone, the freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence was 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76–0.84), and the incidence of periprocedural complications was 0.03 (95% CI 0.02–0.05). In comparative studies, there was no significant difference in the freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence (odds ratio (OR) 1.24, 95% CI 0.90–1.72) and the incidence of periprocedural complications (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.37–1.48) of PFA compared to that of traditional thermal ablation. In the subgroup with a follow-up period less than 12 months, PFA had higher freedom from atrial arrhythmia recurrence rate compared to thermal ablation (OR 2.19, 95% CI 1.14–4.20). Conclusions: PFA is a safe and effective catheter ablation method that is not inferior to the traditional and well-established thermal ablation. It can be used as a treatment of choice for patients with AF. The PROSPERO registration: CRD42023473026, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=473026.

Keywords

• atrial fibrillation
• pulsed field ablation
• thermal ablation
• systematic review
• meta-analysis