Comparison of pulsed field ablation versus cryoballon and radiofrequency ablation for pulmonary vein isolation in atrial fibrillation patients with heart failure

Abstract Background Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is the gold standard for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation and can be achieved by a variety of technical methodes. While thermal ablation modalities (TA), such as cryoballon (CB) and radiofrequency ablation (RF) have been established as the standard approaches, PFA has been introduced as a nvel non-thermal modality showing comparable safety and procedural efficiency. Despite the high incidence of AF in heart failure (HF) patients, data comparing outcomes of HF patients undergoing PVI by either PFA or thermal ablation (RFA/CB) are limited. Purpose This study’s aim was to compare the efficacy and safety of PFA for AF ablation versus CB/RFA in HF patients. Methods Consecutive HF patients with preserved (HFpEF), mildly reduced (HFmrEF) and reduced (HFrEF) ejection fraction undergoing PVI for AF by either PFA or CB/RFA at our institution were included. The primary end-point was time to death or recurrence of AF. Secondary end-points were periprocedural complications and clinical and echocardiographic parameters. Results We included 140 HF patients who underwent PVI either by PFA (PFA group, 76 patients) or thermal ablation approaches (TA group, 64 patients). Our patients had a mean age of 69 years and were predominantly male (62%). There was no significant difference in the baseline characteristics and in the type of AF between both groups (42% with ParAF, 45% with PersAF) and 13% LSPersAF). The distribution of heart failure types was similar between both groups: HFpEF (PFA: 71%, TA: 75%), HFmrEF (PFA: 21%, TA: 20%) and HFrEF (PFA: 8 %, TA: 5%). After the 365-days follow-up period we observed no significant difference for the primary end-point between both groups (HR: 0.79, 95% CI 0.35-1.78; p=0.575). In total 58% of the PFA patients and 59% of the TA group were still free from AF. While symptom improvement was documented in both groups, patients in the PFA group showed significant improvement of left atrial volume index (p = 0.014), NT-pro BNP levels (p = 0.046), and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (p = 0.005). Conclusion In this study, PFA and thermal ablation modalities showed comparable results in terms of safety and procedural efficiency in patients with heart failure. Since previous studies have shown that HF patients with AF benefit from PVI using thermal ablation modalities, our results suggest that PFA might also be a promising ablation method in this vulnerable population, inducing left atrial reverse remodeling and thereby contributing to improvement of left ventricular systolic function.