Arrhythmias & electrophysiologyCohort study
Contemporary catheter ablation of complex atrial tachycardias after prior atrial fibrillation ablation: pulsed field vs. radiofrequency current energy ablation guided by high-density mapping
- Prospective matched cohort study
- consecutive patients
- high-density mapping
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
Main finding
Arrhythmia-free survival (estimated) · 1 year
Hazard ratio
2.91
95% CI 1.11–7.65
P = 0.0473
By group
PFA vs RFC
HR 2.91 (95% CI 1.11–7.65); P = 0.0473
As reported in the abstract
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
Major complications
- 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:10.1093/europace/euae072
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it