Arrhythmias & electrophysiology
Contemporary catheter ablation of complex atrial tachycardias after prior atrial fibrillation ablation: pulsed field vs. radiofrequency current energy ablation guided by high-density mapping
Corrected 23 Oct 2026: Measure wording clarified; no values changed.
Authors' conclusion
Pulsed field ablation of post-ablation LAT using a pentaspline catheter is feasible, safe, and faster but less effective compared to standard RFC ablation after one year of follow-up.
Study context
- Population
- Patients undergoing catheter ablation of LAT after prior AF ablation, 09/2021–02/202377 AT (67 LAT)
- Participants
- 56 patients
- Exposure
- Pulsed field ablation (PFA) vs radiofrequency current (RFC) ablation for post-ablation LAT
- PFAn = 28
- RFCn = 28reference
- Outcome
- Arrhythmia-free survival (estimated)
- Follow-up
- 1 year
Methodological detailsconsecutive patients, high-density mapping
- Consecutive patients
- High-density mapping
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Hazard ratio
2.91
95% CI 1.11–7.65, event not clearly stated
P = 0.0473
By group
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
Acute LAT termination during ablation
P = 1.0
Procedure time
P < 0.0001
Fluoroscopy time
P = 0.04
Safety
- No major complications
Original publication
Contemporary catheter ablation of complex atrial tachycardias after prior atrial fibrillation ablation: pulsed field vs. radiofrequency current energy ablation guided by high-density mapping. Europace. Published 21 March 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →