Abstract:Background: Evidence from clinical trials of early pulsed field ablation (PFA) systems in treating atrial fibrillation has demonstrated their promising potential to reduce complications associated with conventional thermal modalities while maintaining efficacy. However, the lack of a fully integrated mapping system, a staple technology of most modern electrophysiology procedures, poses limitations in lesion creation and workflow options. A novel variable-loop PFA catheter integrated with an electroanatomic mapping system has been developed that allows for real-time nonfluoroscopic procedural guidance and lesion indexing as well as feedback of tissue-to-catheter proximity. AdmIRE (Assessment of Safety and Effectiveness in Treatment Management of Atrial Fibrillation With the Bosense-Webster Irreversible Electroporation Ablation System), a multicenter, single-arm, Food and Drug Administration investigational device exemption study, evaluated the long-term safety and effectiveness of this integrated PFA system in a large United States-based drug-refractory symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation patient population. Methods: Using the PFA catheter with a compatible electroanatomic mapping system, patients with drug-refractory symptomatic paroxysmal atrial fibrillation underwent pulmonary vein isolation. The primary safety end point was primary adverse event within 7 days of ablation. The primary effectiveness end point was a composite end point that included 12-month freedom from documented atrial tachyarrhythmia (ie, atrial fibrillation, atrial tachycardia, atrial flutter) episodes, failure to achieve pulmonary vein isolation, use of a nonstudy catheter for pulmonary vein isolation, repeat procedure (except for one redo during blanking), taking a new or previously failed class I or III antiarrhythmic drug at higher dose after blanking, or direct current cardioversion after blanking. Results: At 30 centers, 277 patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (61.5±10.3 years of age; 64.3% male) in the pivotal cohort underwent PFA. More than 25% of the procedures were performed without fluoroscopy. Median (Q1, Q3) pulmonary vein isolation procedure, fluoroscopy, and transpired PFA application times were 81.0 (61.0, 112.0), 7.1 (0.00, 14.3), and 31.0 (24.8, 40.9) minutes, respectively. The primary adverse event rate was 2.9% (8 of 272), with the most common complication being pericardial tamponade. The 12-month primary effectiveness end point was 74.6%. The 1-year freedom from atrial fibrillation, atrial tachycardia, or atrial flutter recurrence rate after blanking was 75.4%. Substantial improvements in quality of life were observed as early as 3 months after the procedure, concurrent with a reduction in multiple health care use measures. Conclusions: AdmIRE confirmed the safety and effectiveness of the variable-loop PFA catheter, with short procedure and PFA application times and low fluoroscopy exposure. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT05293639.

Pulsed-field ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: An indirect comparison of effectiveness among three proprietary devices conducted in the absence of randomized trials

Radiofrequency Ablation, Cryotherapy Ablation, or Pulsed-Field Ablation to Treat Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation Unresponsive to Pharmacological Treatments: Interpreting Efficacy Through Reconstruction of Individual Patient Data From Randomized Trials

Pulsed Field or Conventional Thermal Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation

Pulsed Field Ablation for the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation: PULSED AF Pivotal Trial

Pulsed electric field, cryoballoon, and radiofrequency for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation ablation: a propensity score-matched comparison

Pulsed Field Ablation to Treat Atrial Fibrillation: A Review of the Literature

Pulsed-field ablation versus thermal ablation for atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis.

Pulsed field ablation versus thermal energy ablation for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of procedural efficiency, safety, and efficacy

Recurrences after Pulsed Field Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation: Incidence, Mechanisms, Predictors, and Comparison with Thermal Energy

Efficacy of Ablation Index-Guided Pulmonary Vein Isolation in Patients with Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation.

Safety and acute efficacy of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation with pulsed field ablation vs thermal energy ablation: A meta-analysis of single proportions

Pulsed Field Ablation to Treat Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: Safety and Effectiveness in the AdmIRE Pivotal Trial

Pulsed Field vs Conventional Thermal Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: Recurrent Atrial Arrhythmia Burden

Safety and Effectiveness of Pulsed Field Ablation to Treat Atrial Fibrillation: One-Year Outcomes From the MANIFEST-PF Registry

Prospective randomized comparison between upgraded ‘2C3L’ vs. PVI approach for catheter ablation of persistent atrial fibrillation: PROMPT-AF trial design

A randomized controlled trial of pulsed field ablation versus standard-of-care ablation for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation: the ADVENT trial rationale and design

Pulsed-field vs. cryoballoon vs. radiofrequency ablation: a propensity score matched comparison of one-year outcomes after pulmonary vein isolation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation

A meta-analysis of the safety and efficacy of pulsed-field versus conventional thermal ablation for atrial fibrillation

A cost-consequence analysis comparing three cardiac ablation strategies for the treatment of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation

Efficacy and safety of pulsed-field versus conventional thermal ablation for atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Cost, Efficiency and Outcomes of Pulsed Field Ablation versus Thermal Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: A Real World Study