ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Pulsed field ablation (PFA) and very high-power short-duration (vHPSD) radiofrequency ablation are the most recently introduced technologies for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation. The procedural performance, safety, and effectiveness of PFA vs vHPSD are currently unknown. OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to compare PFA with vHPSD for the treatment of paroxysmal or persistent AF. METHODS: We conducted an observational, multicenter study enrolling 534 consecutive patients (63 ± 9 years; 36% female) with paroxysmal (n = 368 [69%]) or persistent (n = 166 [31%]) AF undergoing ablation by either PFA (Farawave; n = 192) or vHPSD (90 W/4 seconds; QDOT Micro; n = 342) between 2020 and 2023. Atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence after a 1-month blanking period was the primary efficacy end point and was assessed both overall and in propensity score-matched patients. The primary safety end point was a composite of procedure-related complications. RESULTS: Successful pulmonary vein isolation was achieved in all patients, with shorter procedure duration (PFA,70 minutes; vHPSD, 100 minutes; P < .001) but longer fluoroscopy time (PFA, 15 minutes; vHPSD, 7 minutes; P < .001) in the PFA group. PFA was associated with more frequent use of general anesthesia (P < .001). Primary safety outcome events occurred in 19 patients (3.5%), with similar prevalence in both groups (PFA, 4%; vHPSD, 3%; P = .745). After a median follow-up of 12 (9-12) months, survival free from recurrent atrial tachyarrhythmia was similar between the PFA and vHPSD groups, both overall (12-month estimate: PFA, 75%; vHPSD, 76%; log-rank P = .73) and in propensity score-matched patients (n = 342; 12-month estimate: PFA, 75%; vHPSD, 77%; log-rank P = .980). CONCLUSION: In a large, multicenter experience, PFA was associated with more common use of general anesthesia, shorter procedural times, and longer fluoroscopy exposure compared with vHPSD ablation, with both techniques displaying superimposable safety and efficacy.
