Pulsed Field or Conventional Thermal Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation
Vivek Y Reddy,Edward P Gerstenfeld,Andrea Natale,William Whang,Frank A Cuoco,Chinmay Patel,Stavros E Mountantonakis,Douglas N Gibson,John D Harding,Christopher R Ellis,Kenneth A Ellenbogen,David B DeLurgio,Jose Osorio,Anitha B Achyutha,Christopher W Schneider,Andrew S Mugglin,Elizabeth M Albrecht,Kenneth M Stein,John W Lehmann,Moussa Mansour,Vivek Y. Reddy,Edward P. Gerstenfeld,Frank A. Cuoco,Stavros E. Mountantonakis,Douglas N. Gibson,John D. Harding,Christopher R. Ellis,Kenneth A. Ellenbogen,David B. DeLurgio,Anitha B. Achyutha,Christopher W. Schneider,Andrew S. Mugglin,Elizabeth M. Albrecht,Kenneth M. Stein,John W. Lehmann
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa2307291
IF: 158.5
2023-08-27
New England Journal of Medicine
Abstract:BACKGROUND: Catheter-based pulmonary vein isolation is an effective treatment for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Pulsed field ablation, which delivers microsecond high-voltage electrical fields, may limit damage to tissues outside the myocardium. The efficacy and safety of pulsed field ablation as compared with conventional thermal ablation is not known.METHODS: In this randomized, single-blind, noninferiority trial, we assigned patients with drug-refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in a 1:1 ratio to undergo pulsed field ablation or conventional radiofrequency or cryoballoon ablation. The primary efficacy end point was freedom from a composite of initial procedural failure, documented atrial tachyarrhythmia after a 3-month blanking period, antiarrhythmic drug use, cardioversion, or repeat ablation. The primary safety end point included acute and chronic device- and procedure-related serious adverse events.RESULTS: A total of 305 patients were assigned to undergo pulsed field ablation, and 302 were assigned to undergo thermal ablation. At 1 year, the primary efficacy end point was met (i.e., no events occurred) in 204 patients (estimated probability, 73.3%) who underwent pulsed field ablation and 194 patients (estimated probability, 71.3%) who underwent thermal ablation (between-group difference, 2.0 percentage points; 95% Bayesian credible interval, -5.2 to 9.2; posterior probability of noninferiority, >0.999). Primary safety end-point events occurred in 6 patients (estimated incidence, 2.1%) who underwent pulsed field ablation and 4 patients (estimated incidence, 1.5%) who underwent thermal ablation (between-group difference, 0.6 percentage points; 95% Bayesian credible interval, -1.5 to 2.8; posterior probability of noninferiority, >0.999).CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation receiving a catheter-based therapy, pulsed field ablation was noninferior to conventional thermal ablation with respect to freedom from a composite of initial procedural failure, documented atrial tachyarrhythmia after a 3-month blanking period, antiarrhythmic drug use, cardioversion, or repeat ablation and with respect to device- and procedure-related serious adverse events at 1 year. (Funded by Farapulse-Boston Scientific; ADVENT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04612244.).
medicine, general & internal