Meta-Analysis of Pulsed-Field Ablation Versus- High-Power Short-Duration Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation

To optimize the effectiveness and safety of pulmonary vein isolation, pulsed-field ablation (PFA) and high-power short-duration ablation (HPSD) have recently been incorporated into clinical practice. The objective of this study is to conduct a comparative analysis, focusing on the efficacy, safety, and procedural efficiency of PFA and HPSD in the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF).

A thorough search was performed across multiple databases to identify trials that compared PFA with HPSD for AF from their inception until July 2024. The odds ratio (OR) and mean difference (MD), accompanied by a 95% confidence interval (CI), were employed as indicators of treatment efficacy.

The analysis included six eligible trials, encompassing a total enrollment of 1382 patients. No statistically significant disparities were observed in terms of freedom from any atrial arrhythmia (OR 1.10; 95% CI 0.75, 1.63) or periprocedural complications (OR 1.04; 95% CI 0.52, 2.09) between the two ablation techniques. The likelihood of requiring a repeat ablation procedure was significantly reduced with PFA compared to HPSD (OR 0.63; 95% CI 0.41-0.97); however, there was no significant difference in the incidence of PV reconnection between patients initially treated with HPSD and those using PFA (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.53-1.30). The PFA technique demonstrated significantly shorter procedure time (MD -34.58; 95% CI -45.20, -23.96) and left atrium (LA) dwell time (MD -34.52; 95% CI -58.42, -10.61), but longer fluoroscopy time (MD 8.81; 95% CI 6.25, 11.37). The subgroup analyses revealed that PFA continued to exhibit superior procedure time and LA dwell time but inferior fluoroscopy time.

The efficacy and safety profiles of both PFA and HPSD are comparable in patients undergoing ablation therapy for AF; however, PFA is associated with shorter procedural time and longer fluoroscopy time.