Comparison of pulsed field ablation and cryoballoon ablation for pulmonary vein isolation

Meta-analysis of pulsed-field ablation versus cryoablation for atrial fibrillation

PURPOSE

The available data on the treatment strategy of pulsed field ablation (PFA) for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is limited. This study aims to provide a comparative analysis of the efficacy, safety, and procedural efficiency between PFA and cryoballoon ablation (CBA) for AF.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search of the EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases to identify trials comparing PFA with CBA for AF from their inception until December 2023. The odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD), along with a 95% confidence interval (CI), were utilized as measures of treatment effect.

RESULTS

The analysis included 15 eligible trials with a total enrollment of 1880 patients. No significant differences were found in recurrent atrial arrhythmia (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.64, 1.07) or periprocedural complications (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.46, 1.30) between the two ablation techniques examined in this study. However, the PFA technique demonstrated a significantly shorter procedure time (MD -7.17, 95% CI -13.60, -0.73), but a longer fluoroscopy time (MD 2.53, 95% CI 0.87, 4.19). Similarly, PFA was found to be significantly associated with a decreased incidence of phrenic nerve palsy (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07, 0.59), but an increased incidence of cardiac tamponade (OR 4.07, 95% CI 1.15, 14.39). Moreover, there was a significantly higher release of troponin with PFA compared to CBA (MD 470.28, 95% CI 18.89, 921.67), while the increase in S100 protein and heart rate was significantly lower with PFA than with CBA (MD -64.41, 95% CI -105.46, -17.36), (MD -8.76, 95% CI -15.12, -2.40).

CONCLUSION

The utilization of PFA provides a safer, time-saving, and tissue-specific procedure compared to CBA, while maintaining comparable success rates. This has the potential to enhance procedural efficiency and optimize resource utilization in clinical practice. These findings underscore the feasibility and promise of PFA as an alternative technique for PVI in patients with AF.

Pulsed field ablation and cryoballoon ablation for pulmonary vein isolation: insights on efficacy, safety and cardiac function

BACKGROUND

Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) has become the cornerstone treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). While in cryoablation cell damage is caused by thermal effects, lately, pulsed field ablation (PFA) has been established as a novel non-thermal tissue-specific ablation modality for PVI. However, data comparing outcomes of patients undergoing either PFA or cryoballoon ablation (CBA) for primary PVI are sparse.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with AF undergoing PVI by either CBA or PFA were included in the analysis. The primary outcome was the time to AF/AT recurrence. For secondary outcomes, clinical and periprocedural parameters were compared.

RESULTS

In total, outcomes of 141 AF patients treated by PFA (94 patients) or CBA (47 patients) were compared. After 365 days, 70% of patients in the PFA group and 61% of patients in the CBA group were free from AF/AT (HR 1.35, 95% CI 0.60-3.00; p = 0.470). No deaths occurred. While symptoms alleviated in both groups, only after PFA, we observed significant improvement of left atrial volume index (PFA group baseline: 40 [31;62] ml/m2, PFA group follow-up: 35 [29;49] ml/m2; p = 0.015), NT-pro BNP levels (PFA group baseline: 1106 ± 2479 pg/ml, PFA group follow-up: 1033 ± 1742 pg/ml; p = 0.048), and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (PFA group baseline: 55 [48;60] %, PFA group follow-up: 58 [54;63] %; p = 0.006). PVI by PFA was the only independent predictor of LVEF improvement.

CONCLUSION

In our study, we show that CBA and PFA for PVI are of similar efficacy when it comes to AF recurrence. However, our findings suggest that PFA rather than CBA might induce left atrial reverse remodeling thereby contributing to left ventricular systolic function.