Abstract 4371049: Pulsed-Field vs Radiofrequency Ablation: Evaluation of Outcomes in Recurrent Atrial Fibrillation

Background: Pulsed-field ablation (PFA) has recently been approved in the USA as a new method for treating atrial fibrillation (AF). PFA provides a promising new approach in the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF), which historically has a high recurrence rate post-ablation. Of significance, PFA has shown promising data in terms of safety and procedural efficiency to radiofrequency ablation (RFA). Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the procedural and health outcomes in patients with recurrent AF undergoing ablation using PFA or RFA. Methods: Consecutive patients with a history of previous radiofrequency ablation and recurrent AF undergoing redo ablation with PFA or RFA were included. Patients were seen for follow-up in the clinic ranging from four months to a year and we reported ablation strategy and arrhythmia type. The primary outcome was recurrence of any atrial arrhythmia after a 90-day blanking period. Results: A total of 240 patients with recurrent AF underwent redo ablation using PFA (n = 54, 22.5%) or RFA (n = 186, 77.5%). Patients receiving PFA had an average age of 66 (SD ±11.7), were 69% male, and an average CHADSVASC score of 2.2 (SD ±1.61). This is similar to the demographic of patients receiving RFA, with an average age of 70 (SD ±12.95), 62.3% male, and average CHADSVASC of 3.06 (SD ±1.58). Procedures with PFA guided by fluoroscopy had an average fluoroscopy exposure time of 13.85 minutes compared to RFA procedures with 8.73 min (p = 6.313e-07). Fig 1 identifies the proportions of atrial arrhythmias ablated with each method. A high proportion of lesion sets utilized PVI (pulmonary vein isolation) along with other methods as shown in Fig 2. Of PFA patients who completed follow-up (n=30), 26% had a recurrence of AF. This was less than the 41% of RFA patients (n=49) followed who presented with AF recurrence (HR=0.22, CI 0.08-0.60, p=0.006). Conclusion: In patients with recurrent AF undergoing redo ablation, patients receiving PFA ablation presented with an 88% lower risk of recurrent AF compared to patients who received RFA.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Circulation
Published
2025-11-03
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1161/circ.152.suppl_3.4371049
Primary Topic
Atrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Abstract 4371049: Pulsed-Field vs Radiofrequency Ablation: Evaluation of Outcomes in Recurrent Atrial Fibrillation

Wendy S. Tzou, Matthew M. Zipse, Michael Rosenberg, Carmel Ashur et al.
Circulation
Atrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
article

Abstract 4371049: Pulsed-Field vs Radiofrequency Ablation: Evaluation of Outcomes in Recurrent Atrial Fibrillation

Wendy S. Tzou, Matthew M. Zipse, Michael Rosenberg, Carmel Ashur, Syed Rafay Ali Sabzwari, Alexis Z. Tumolo, Lohit Garg, Vishal Patel
article en

Abstract

Background: Pulsed-field ablation (PFA) has recently been approved in the USA as a new method for treating atrial fibrillation (AF). PFA provides a promising new approach in the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF), which historically has a high recurrence rate post-ablation. Of significance, PFA has shown promising data in terms of safety and procedural efficiency to radiofrequency ablation (RFA). Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the procedural and health outcomes in patients with recurrent AF undergoing ablation using PFA or RFA. Methods: Consecutive patients with a history of previous radiofrequency ablation and recurrent AF undergoing redo ablation with PFA or RFA were included. Patients were seen for follow-up in the clinic ranging from four months to a year and we reported ablation strategy and arrhythmia type. The primary outcome was recurrence of any atrial arrhythmia after a 90-day blanking period. Results: A total of 240 patients with recurrent AF underwent redo ablation using PFA (n = 54, 22.5%) or RFA (n = 186, 77.5%). Patients receiving PFA had an average age of 66 (SD ±11.7), were 69% male, and an average CHADSVASC score of 2.2 (SD ±1.61). This is similar to the demographic of patients receiving RFA, with an average age of 70 (SD ±12.95), 62.3% male, and average CHADSVASC of 3.06 (SD ±1.58). Procedures with PFA guided by fluoroscopy had an average fluoroscopy exposure time of 13.85 minutes compared to RFA procedures with 8.73 min (p = 6.313e-07). Fig 1 identifies the proportions of atrial arrhythmias ablated with each method. A high proportion of lesion sets utilized PVI (pulmonary vein isolation) along with other methods as shown in Fig 2. Of PFA patients who completed follow-up (n=30), 26% had a recurrence of AF. This was less than the 41% of RFA patients (n=49) followed who presented with AF recurrence (HR=0.22, CI 0.08-0.60, p=0.006). Conclusion: In patients with recurrent AF undergoing redo ablation, patients receiving PFA ablation presented with an 88% lower risk of recurrent AF compared to patients who received RFA.

CirculationVol. 152(Suppl_3)
University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus (US), University of Colorado Denver (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 51%
Atrial Fibrillation Management and Outcomes
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.