> Detailanzeige

Wörmann, Jonas; Schipper, Jan‐Hendrik; Lüker, Jakob; van den Bruck, Jan‐Hendrik; Filipovic, Karlo; Erlhöfer, Susanne; Pavel, Friederike; Scheurlen, Cornelia; Dittrich, Sebastian; Steven, Daniel; Sultan, Arian

Comparison of pulsed‐field ablation versus very high power short duration‐ablation for pulmonary vein isolation

Literatur-
verwaltung

Zur
Merkliste

Lösche von
Merkliste

Per Whatsapp teilen

Schließen

Merkliste



Sie können Bookmarks mittels Listen verwalten, loggen Sie sich dafür bitte in Ihr SLUB Benutzerkonto ein.
  • Medientyp: E-Artikel
  • Titel: Comparison of pulsed‐field ablation versus very high power short duration‐ablation for pulmonary vein isolation
  • Beteiligte: Wörmann, Jonas; Schipper, Jan‐Hendrik; Lüker, Jakob; van den Bruck, Jan‐Hendrik; Filipovic, Karlo; Erlhöfer, Susanne; Pavel, Friederike; Scheurlen, Cornelia; Dittrich, Sebastian; Steven, Daniel; Sultan, Arian
  • Erschienen: Wiley, 2023
  • Erschienen in: Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology, 34 (2023) 12, Seite 2417-2424
  • Sprache: Englisch
  • DOI: 10.1111/jce.16101
  • ISSN: 1045-3873; 1540-8167
  • Entstehung:
  • Anmerkungen:
  • Beschreibung: AbstractBackgroundThe newly introduced nonthermal pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a promising technology to achieve fast pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) with high acute success rates and good safety features. However, previous studies have shown that very high power short duration ablation (VHPSD) is also highly effective and fast to achieve PVI with potentially less arrhythmia recurrence compared to conventional radiofrequency ablation. Data comparing PFA to VHPSD‐PVI is lacking.ObjectiveThis study compared procedural and outcome data for PFA‐PVI to VHPSD‐PVI in patients with paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation (PAF/persAF).MethodsConsecutive patients undergoing de novo PVI (PFA or VHPSD) were included in this analysis. For PFA‐PVI a pentaspline 20 electrode catheter was used. For VHPSD‐PVI an enhanced irrigated catheter with a power setting of 70 W/7 s (70 W/5 s at posterior wall) was employed in conjunction with electro‐anatomical mapping. All procedures were performed in deep analgo‐sedation.ResultsA total of n = 114 patients (n = 57[50%] PFA, n = 17[30%] PAF; n = 40[70%] persAF) were included in this analysis. PVI was successful in all patients. The PFA group revealed a significantly shorter procedure duration (65 ± 17 min vs. 95 ± 23 min, p < 0.01) but longer fluoroscopy time (PFA 15 ± 5 min and VHPSD 12 ± 3 min; p < 0.001). At follow‐up after median 125 days (interquartile range: 109–162) n = 46 PFA (80.7%) and n = 44 VHPSD pts (77.2%) were free from atrial arrhythmia after a single procedure (p = 0.819).Two tamponades occurred in the PFA while in VHPSD two pts suffered groin bleedings. One clinically nonsignificant PV stenosis occurred in the VHPSD group.ConclusionPulsed‐field ablation and VHPSD‐PVI seem to be highly effective and safe to achieve PVI in the setting of PAF and persAF with comparable arrhythmia‐free survival. However, procedure duration for PFA PVI is significantly shorter and therefore may be of potential benefit. Compared to PFA VHPSD‐PVI might ensure information on left atrial substrate allowing to target concomitant secondary tachycardias.