A real-world case–control study on the efficacy and safety of pulsed field ablation for atrial fibrillation

Abstract

Abstract Objective The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of pulsed field ablation in individuals diagnosed with atrial fibrillation. Methods A total of 36 patients diagnosed with atrial fibrillation were enrolled in the pulsed field ablation group, while another 36 patients diagnosed with atrial fibrillation were included in the radiofrequency ablation group. Among the study participants, 15 patients in the pulsed field ablation group and 17 patients in the radiofrequency ablation group had persistent atrial fibrillation. Comprehensive comparisons were made between the two groups, including baseline data, underlying diseases, medication usage, intraoperative parameters, and atrial fibrillation recurrence rates at 1, 3, and 6 months during the postoperative follow-up period. Results (1) There were no significant differences observed between the two groups concerning baseline data and antiarrhythmic drug usage (P > 0.05); (2) the effective ablation time for both left and right pulmonary veins in the pulsed field ablation group was markedly shorter compared to the radiofrequency ablation group (P 0.05). Conclusion During the 6-month follow-up period, pulsed field ablation demonstrated comparable efficacy to radiofrequency ablation with respect to recurrence rates for both paroxysmal and persistent atrial fibrillation. Moreover, pulsed field ablation exhibited high safety levels, excellent surgical efficiency, and a notably brief learning curve, affirming its viability as a therapeutic option for these conditions.

Keywords

• Atrial fibrillation
• Pulsed field ablation
• Radiofrequency ablation