PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 8, 2026European Heart Journal1 citations

Pulsed-field ablation versus radiofrequency ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

View Full Paper
IEI Martins EstevesTTT TrevisanGPG Mattos De Pontes

Key Result

Pulsed-field ablation reduced procedural time by 39.2 minutes compared to radiofrequency ablation, with comparable success rates and safety in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.

Key Points

  • This research aims to compare the efficacy and safety of pulsed-field ablation (PFA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for treating paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF).
  • Conducted a systematic search in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases.
  • Included one randomized controlled trial and five observational studies involving 1,863 patients with paroxysmal AF.
  • Pooled risk ratios and mean differences using a random-effects model in R software.
  • PFA showed a significantly shorter procedural time (mean difference of -39.2 minutes; p < 0.01) compared to RFA.
  • No significant differences in cardiac tamponade, success rate, or major complications between PFA and RFA were observed.

Structured PICO

Does pulsed-field ablation reduce procedural time or improve efficacy and safety compared to radiofrequency ablation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation?

P
Population
1,863 patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation from 1 RCT and 5 observational studies, mean age 64.2 years.
I
Intervention
Pulsed-field ablation (PFA)
C
Comparator
Radiofrequency ablation (RFA)
O
Outcome
Efficacy (success rate), safety (cardiac tamponade, major complications), and procedural time

Pulsed-field ablation significantly reduces procedural time compared to radiofrequency ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, while maintaining comparable efficacy and safety profiles.

Abstract

Abstract Background Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is an effective treatment for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). Pulsed-field ablation (PFA) is a novel nonthermal cardiac tissue-selective energy modality. However, its efficacy and safety compared with radiofrequency ablation (RFA) remain uncertain. Purpose To compare the efficacy and safety of PFA versus RFA for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for studies comparing PFA and RFA in patients with paroxysmal AF. We pooled risk ratios (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for binary and continuous outcomes, respectively. All statistical analyses were performed using R software version 4.3.1 with a random-effects model. Results We included one randomized controlled trial (RCT) and five observational studies comprising 1,863 patients with paroxysmal AF, of whom 839 (45%) underwent PFA. The mean age was 64.2 years, and the follow-up duration ranged from 12 to 30 months. As compared with RFA, PFA was associated with a shorter procedural time (MD -39.2 min; 95% CI -58.2 to -20.1; p 0.01), while no statistical differences were found in terms of cardiac tamponade (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.26 to 2.87; p = 0.82), success rate (RR 1.06; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.14; p = 0.09), or major complications (RR 1.84; 95% CI 0.61 to 5.50; p = 0.28) between PFA and RFA. Conclusions In this meta-analysis, PFA showed a reduced procedural time, with comparable efficacy and safety profiles.Success rate and procedural time Major complications and cardiac tamponad

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Esteves et al. (2025) studied this question. Pulsed-field ablation reduced procedural time by 39.2 minutes compared to radiofrequency ablation, with comparable success rates and safety in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6988291e0fc35cd7a88493a2https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehaf784.477
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper