Pulsed field versus cryoballoon ablation for atrial fibrillation: a real-world observational study on procedural outcomes and efficacy

Introduction Atrial fibrillation often necessitates catheter ablation when antiarrhythmic drug therapy fails.

Single-shot technologies using thermal energy, such as cryoballoon ablation, are commonly used, but pulsed field ablation (PFA), an innovative non-thermal ablation technique, is a potential alternative.

This retrospective observational study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of cryoballoon ablation and PFA in patients undergoing their first pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) procedure for atrial fibrillation treatment.

Methods We utilised real-world data from patients who underwent PVI using cryoballoon ablation or PFA.

The primary outcome encompassed procedural complications, including phrenic nerve palsy, cardiac tamponade, thromboembolic complications, bleeding complications and mortality.

Secondary outcomes were procedural characteristics including procedure duration, length of hospital admission, and re-do ablation rates within 6 months.

Results A total of 1714 procedures were analysed: 1241 in the cryoballoon group and 473 in the PFA group.

Gender distribution ( p  = 0.03) and estimated glomerular filtration rate ( p  = 0.01) differed significantly.

With regard to the primary outcome, the cryoballoon group demonstrated a higher incidence of phrenic nerve palsy compared with the PFA group (15 vs 0; p  = 0.02).

The procedure duration was shorter in the PFA group, even after adjusting for baseline characteristics (95.0 vs 74.0 min; p  < 0.001).

After adjustment for baseline characteristics, admission duration differed between the groups as well ( p  = 0.04).

Conclusion The study results supported the safety and efficacy of PFA over cryoballoon ablation for PVI, highlighting advantages such as shorter procedure duration and absence of phrenic nerve palsy.