Scholarlink

Background <p>Pulsed field ablation (PFA) has emerged as an innovative non-thermal approach with significant promise for treating atrial fibrillation (AF). However, comparative data between PFA and thermal ablation (TA, including cryoballoon ablation [CBA] and radiofrequency ablation [RFA]) for persistent AF (PerAF) remain limited.</p> Methods <p>A systematic search was conducted in the Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to include all relevant studies that compared PFA with TA.</p> Results <p>Six trials involving 1610 patients were included in the study. Pooled analyses revealed that PFA exerted significant advantages over TA, characterized by lower recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmias (ATAs) (risk ratio [RR]: 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.70 to 0.97; <i>P</i> = 0.02), especially for AF recurrence (RR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.65 to 0.95; <i>P</i> = 0.015). Furthermore, PFA significantly reduced procedural time (standard mean difference [SMD]: −1.25; 95% CI: −1.87 to − 0.64; <i>P</i> &lt; 0.00001) and left atrial dwell (LAD) time (SMD: −14.21; 95% CI: −27.60 to − 0.82; <i>P</i> = 0.04). No significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding fluoroscopy time and complications.</p> Conclusion <p>PFA is effective and safe for PerAF treatment, featuring shorter procedure time, LAD time and lower ATAs recurrence.</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

Safety and efficacy of the pulsed field ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月12日

查看全文
  • Hui Li,
  • Qin Cui,
  • Weiping Tao,
  • Qinghua Qiu,
  • Jiadong Yang,
  • Aiwu Guo

摘要

Background

Pulsed field ablation (PFA) has emerged as an innovative non-thermal approach with significant promise for treating atrial fibrillation (AF). However, comparative data between PFA and thermal ablation (TA, including cryoballoon ablation [CBA] and radiofrequency ablation [RFA]) for persistent AF (PerAF) remain limited.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted in the Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases to include all relevant studies that compared PFA with TA.

Results

Six trials involving 1610 patients were included in the study. Pooled analyses revealed that PFA exerted significant advantages over TA, characterized by lower recurrence of atrial tachyarrhythmias (ATAs) (risk ratio [RR]: 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.70 to 0.97; P = 0.02), especially for AF recurrence (RR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.65 to 0.95; P = 0.015). Furthermore, PFA significantly reduced procedural time (standard mean difference [SMD]: −1.25; 95% CI: −1.87 to − 0.64; P < 0.00001) and left atrial dwell (LAD) time (SMD: −14.21; 95% CI: −27.60 to − 0.82; P = 0.04). No significant differences were observed between the two groups regarding fluoroscopy time and complications.

Conclusion

PFA is effective and safe for PerAF treatment, featuring shorter procedure time, LAD time and lower ATAs recurrence.