Affiliation:
1. Department of Anesthesiology Ninghua County General Hospital Sanming China
2. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery Nursing Fujian Medical University Union Hospital Fuzhou China
3. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery Union Hospital, Fujian Medical University Fuzhou China
4. Department of Pharmacy National Regional Medical Center, Binhai Campus of the First Affiliated Hospital, Fujian Medical University Fuzhou China
5. Department of Anesthesiology the First Affiliated Hospital, Fujian Medical University Fuzhou China
6. Department of Anesthesiology National Regional Medical Center, Binhai Campus of the First Affiliated Hospital, Fujian Medical University Fuzhou China
Abstract
AbstractPurposeThe available data on the treatment strategy of pulsed field ablation (PFA) for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is limited. This study aims to provide a comparative analysis of the efficacy, safety, and procedural efficiency between PFA and cryoballoon ablation (CBA) for AF.MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive search of the EMBASE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases to identify trials comparing PFA with CBA for AF from their inception until December 2023. The odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD), along with a 95% confidence interval (CI), were utilized as measures of treatment effect.ResultsThe analysis included 15 eligible trials with a total enrollment of 1880 patients. No significant differences were found in recurrent atrial arrhythmia (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.64, 1.07) or periprocedural complications (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.46, 1.30) between the two ablation techniques examined in this study. However, the PFA technique demonstrated a significantly shorter procedure time (MD ‐7.17, 95% CI ‐13.60, ‐0.73), but a longer fluoroscopy time (MD 2.53, 95% CI 0.87, 4.19). Similarly, PFA was found to be significantly associated with a decreased incidence of phrenic nerve palsy (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.07, 0.59), but an increased incidence of cardiac tamponade (OR 4.07, 95% CI 1.15, 14.39). Moreover, there was a significantly higher release of troponin with PFA compared to CBA (MD 470.28, 95% CI 18.89, 921.67), while the increase in S100 protein and heart rate was significantly lower with PFA than with CBA (MD ‐64.41, 95% CI ‐105.46, ‐17.36), (MD ‐8.76, 95% CI ‐15.12, ‐2.40).ConclusionThe utilization of PFA provides a safer, time‐saving, and tissue‐specific procedure compared to CBA, while maintaining comparable success rates. This has the potential to enhance procedural efficiency and optimize resource utilization in clinical practice. These findings underscore the feasibility and promise of PFA as an alternative technique for PVI in patients with AF.