Posterior wall ablation by pulsed-field ablation: procedural safety, efficacy, and findings on redo procedures.

AIMS: The left atrial posterior wall is a potential ablation target in patients with recurrent atrial fibrillation despite durable pulmonary vein isolation or in patients with roof-dependent atrial tachycardia (AT). Pulsed-field ablation (PFA) offers efficient and safe posterior wall ablation (PWA), but available data are scarce. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive patients undergoing PWA using PFA were included. Posterior wall ablation was performed using a pentaspline PFA catheter and verified by 3D-electroanatomical mapping. Follow-up was performed using 7-day Holter ECGs 3, 6, and 12 months after ablation. Recurrence of any atrial arrhythmia lasting more than 30 s was defined as failure. Lesion durability was assessed during redo procedures. Posterior wall ablation was performed in 215 patients (70% males, median age 70 [IQR 61-75] years, 67% redo procedures) and was successful in all patients (100%) by applying a median of 36 (IQR 32-44) PFA lesions. Severe adverse events were cardiac tamponade and vascular access complication in one patient each (0.9%). Median follow-up was 7.3 (IQR 5.0-11.8) months. One-year arrhythmia-free outcome in Kaplan-Meier analysis was 53%. A redo procedure was performed in 26 patients (12%) after a median of 6.9 (IQR 2.4-11) months and showed durable PWA in 22 patients (85%) with only minor lesion regression. Among four patients with posterior wall reconnection, three (75%) presented with roof-dependent AT. CONCLUSION: Posterior wall ablation with this pentaspline PFA catheter can be safely and efficiently performed with a high durability observed during redo procedures. The added value of durable PWA for the treatment of atrial fibrillation remains to be evaluated.

Pulsed-field vs cryoballoon vs radiofrequency ablation: Outcomes after pulmonary vein isolation in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Pulsed-field ablation (PFA) has shown promising data in terms of safety and procedural efficiency for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), with similar long-term outcomes compared to radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and cryoballoon ablation (CBA) in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the procedural and long-term outcomes in patients with persistent AF undergoing PVI using PFA, CBA, or RFA. METHODS: Consecutive patients with persistent AF undergoing first PVI with PFA, CBA, or RFA were included. Patients underwent 7-day Holter electrocardiography at 3, 6, and 12 months postablation. The primary outcome was recurrence of any atrial arrhythmia after a 90-day blanking period. Safety outcomes included the composite of in-hospital major adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 533 patients with persistent AF underwent PVI using PFA (n = 214, 39%), CBA (n = 190, 36%), or RFA (n = 129, 24%). Procedures with PFA guided by fluoroscopy were shorter than those with CBA (median 60 minutes; interquartile range [IQR] 53-80 minutes vs 84 minutes; IQR 68-101 minutes; P ≤ .001), and procedures with PFA in combination with 3-dimensional electroanatomic mapping were shorter than those with RFA (median 101 minutes; IQR 85-126 minutes vs 171 minutes; IQR 141-204 minutes; P < .001). Acute safety events occurred in 2.3%, 2.6%, and 0.8% in the PFA, CBA, and RFA groups, respectively (P = .545). The 1-year confounder-adjusted estimate for freedom from atrial arrhythmias was 62.1% for CBA, 55.3% for PFA, and 48.3% for RFA (CBA vs PFA: P = .79; CBA vs RFA: P = .009; PFA vs RFA: P = .010). CONCLUSION: In patients with persistent AF undergoing first PVI, 1-year confounder-adjusted outcomes are better with PFA and CBA than with RFA.