Arrhythmias & electrophysiologyResearch article
Hemolysis and renal tubular injury after pulsed field ablation: A comparison between two commercially available platforms
- retrospectively analyzed
- consecutive patients
Authors' conclusion
Farapulse was associated with greater intravascular hemolysis than PulseSelect across multiple markers, but these differences did not translate into detectable renal tubular injury under the procedural conditions of this study.
Study context
- Population
- Patients undergoing AF ablation with pulsed field ablationPulseSelect 72 · Farapulse 59
- Participants
- 131 consecutive patients
- Comparison
- Periprocedural changes were compared between platforms.
- PulseSelectn = 72
- Farapulsen = 59
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
ΔHaptoglobin · day before to day after ablation
Farapulse
−59
range in brackets −71–-33 · mg/dL
PulseSelect
−36
range in brackets −51–-24 · mg/dL
P < 0.001
Further findings
| Outcome | P value |
|---|---|
| Serum lactate dehydrogenase and total bilirubin — Farapulse vs PulseSelect · lactate dehydrogenase increased more with Farapulse | P = 0.002 |
| Serum lactate dehydrogenase and total bilirubin — Farapulse vs PulseSelect · total bilirubin increased more with Farapulse | P = 0.001 |
Urinary NAG, β2-microglobulin, α1-microglobulin
- did not differ significantly
- all P > .05
Serum creatinine
- did not differ significantly
- P = 0.948
Multivariable regression
- Device type was an independent predictor of ΔHaptoglobin and Δtotal bilirubin but was not associated with any renal tubular biomarker
eGFR-defined chronic kidney disease (subgroup)
- platform-dependent hemolysis persisted, but urinary tubular biomarker changes remained comparable
Original publication
Hemolysis and renal tubular injury after pulsed field ablation: A comparison between two commercially available platforms. Heart Rhythm. Published 4 August 2026. doi:10.1016/j.hrthm.2026.07.043
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it