Arrhythmias & electrophysiology
Pulsed-Field vs Thermal Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy
Authors' conclusion
In patients with HCM and AF, PFA seems to be associated with better safety and efficacy outcomes than thermal ablation.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) undergoing a first atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation, 2016 to 2024
- Participants
- 109 patients
- Exposure
- Pulsed-field ablation (PFA) vs thermal ablation
- PFAn = 58
- Thermal ablationn = 51reference
- Outcome
- Extra-PV ablation performed
Methodological details3 French and Swiss centers
- 3 French and Swiss centers
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
Procedure time · shorter with PFA
P < 0.0001
| Outcome | Adjusted HR (95% CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA recurrenceLess AA recurrence with PFA | 0.46 (0.23–0.91) | P = 0.03 | |
| 0.20.5125Adjusted hazard ratio (log scale) |
Sustained atrial arrhythmia (AA) recurrence associated with extra-PV ablation, by ablation type
| HR (95% CI) | P value | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Extra-PV ablation (thermal ablation)More sustained AA recurrence with thermal ablation | 3.07 (1.21–7.82) | P = 0.02 | |
| Extra-PV ablation (PFA)Not with PFA | 1.07 (0.35–3.27) | P = 0.91 | |
| 0.10.31310Hazard ratio (log scale) |
Freedom from AA recurrence (overall) · 12 months
- Freedom from AA recurrence
- 57% (95% CI: 46%-67%)
Safety
Events
| Outcome | PFA | Thermal ablation | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Postprocedural heart failureLess with PFA | 0 | 4 | P = 0.03 |
Original publication
Pulsed-Field vs Thermal Catheter Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. Published 12 March 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →