Scholarlink

Background <p>Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is an established treatment for symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF). To date, cryoballoon (CB) ablation has been the most widely adopted single-shot approach, while pulsed field ablation (PFA) has emerged as a non-thermal alternative designed to preferentially ablate myocardial tissue and reduce collateral injury. PulseSelect™ is a CE-marked and FDA approved PFA system specifically developed for PVI. We compared acute and one-year outcomes of PulseSelect PFA versus fourth-generation cryoballoon (CB4) ablation in routine clinical practice.</p> Methods <p>This multicenter analysis included 254 consecutive patients undergoing first-time PVI in 10 Italian medium-volume centers between January 2024 and February 2025: 121 treated with PulseSelect and 133 with CB4. Baseline clinical and echocardiographic characteristics were prospectively collected. Procedural workflow, anesthesia strategy, procedure duration, fluoroscopy time, and periprocedural complications were assessed. Follow-up consisted of scheduled visits with rhythm monitoring, and arrhythmia recurrence was evaluated using Kaplan–Meier analysis.</p> Results <p>A total of 254 consecutive patients (mean age 62 ± 9 years, 28.3% women with paroxysmal AF in 76.4%) undergoing first-time PVI were included in the analysis: 133 treated with CB4 and 121 with PS PFA, with largely comparable baseline characteristics. General anesthesia was more frequently used with PulseSelect than with CB4 (74.4% vs. 16.5%). Mean skin-to-skin procedure duration was shorter with PulseSelect (62.4 ± 18&#xa0;min) compared with CB4 (71.4 ± 30&#xa0;min; <i>p</i> = 0.005), while fluoroscopy time was longer with PulseSelect. No acute complications occurred in the PulseSelect group; three transient phrenic nerve palsies were observed with CB4. At 12 months, no statistically significant difference in arrhythmia recurrence was observed between PulseSelect and CB4 (17.4% vs. 15.0%; <i>p</i> = 0.46).</p> Conclusions <p>In this real-world multicenter cohort, PulseSelect PFA and CB4 ablation showed excellent acute safety and no statistically significant differences in one-year arrhythmia recurrence were observed between the two treatment strategies.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Single-shot ablation for AF: Real-world procedural and one-year outcomes with the newly adopted PulseSelect PFA compared with cryoballoon from the 1STOP project

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月4日

查看全文
  • Giuseppe Boriani,
  • Giulio Molon,
  • Stefano Nardi,
  • Gianfranco Mitacchione,
  • Danilo Ricciardi,
  • Enrico Chieffo,
  • Roberto Mantovan,
  • Luca Bontempi,
  • Cristian Martignani,
  • Michela Casella,
  • Edoardo Casali,
  • Vincenzo Turco,
  • Alessandro Costa,
  • Luigi Argenziano,
  • Matteo Ziacchi,
  • Antonio Dello Russo

摘要

Background

Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is an established treatment for symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF). To date, cryoballoon (CB) ablation has been the most widely adopted single-shot approach, while pulsed field ablation (PFA) has emerged as a non-thermal alternative designed to preferentially ablate myocardial tissue and reduce collateral injury. PulseSelect™ is a CE-marked and FDA approved PFA system specifically developed for PVI. We compared acute and one-year outcomes of PulseSelect PFA versus fourth-generation cryoballoon (CB4) ablation in routine clinical practice.

Methods

This multicenter analysis included 254 consecutive patients undergoing first-time PVI in 10 Italian medium-volume centers between January 2024 and February 2025: 121 treated with PulseSelect and 133 with CB4. Baseline clinical and echocardiographic characteristics were prospectively collected. Procedural workflow, anesthesia strategy, procedure duration, fluoroscopy time, and periprocedural complications were assessed. Follow-up consisted of scheduled visits with rhythm monitoring, and arrhythmia recurrence was evaluated using Kaplan–Meier analysis.

Results

A total of 254 consecutive patients (mean age 62 ± 9 years, 28.3% women with paroxysmal AF in 76.4%) undergoing first-time PVI were included in the analysis: 133 treated with CB4 and 121 with PS PFA, with largely comparable baseline characteristics. General anesthesia was more frequently used with PulseSelect than with CB4 (74.4% vs. 16.5%). Mean skin-to-skin procedure duration was shorter with PulseSelect (62.4 ± 18 min) compared with CB4 (71.4 ± 30 min; p = 0.005), while fluoroscopy time was longer with PulseSelect. No acute complications occurred in the PulseSelect group; three transient phrenic nerve palsies were observed with CB4. At 12 months, no statistically significant difference in arrhythmia recurrence was observed between PulseSelect and CB4 (17.4% vs. 15.0%; p = 0.46).

Conclusions

In this real-world multicenter cohort, PulseSelect PFA and CB4 ablation showed excellent acute safety and no statistically significant differences in one-year arrhythmia recurrence were observed between the two treatment strategies.