Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 13, 2025
Robotic Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation
Published on: May 29, 2015
2025 International Expert Practical Guide on the Use of the Pentaspline Pulsed Field Ablation System in Atrial
Shaojie Chen1,2,3, Sanjiv M Narayan4, Serge Boveda5
1Rhythmology and Clinical Cardiac Electrophysiology, Klinik Internal Medicine B (Cardiology, Angiology, Pneumology and Internal Intensive Care Medicine), University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany (S.C.).
Abstract:
Pulsed field ablation (PFA) has been developed as a largely nonthermal ablation technology with a unique biophysical profile to treat atrial fibrillation. Existing evidence has shown that PFA offers a safe and efficient atrial fibrillation ablation procedure. Among different PFA technologies, the pentaspline FARAPULSE system has been the most extensively used and investigated; however, notable variability exists in workflow, fluoroscopy time, and lesion durability. While innovations such as 3-dimensional electroanatomic mapping systems and intracardiac echocardiography can enhance procedural precision in catheter ablation, fluoroscopy remains the primary imaging modality for guiding pentaspline PFA in many electrophysiology labs worldwide. This is particularly true in centers where limitations in cost, infrastructure, or training may preclude the routine use of advanced imaging technologies. This article summarizes general practical considerations and presents a primarily fluoroscopy-based, refined workflow developed by a group of experts. The goal is to provide a procedural foundation and practical guide for using the pentaspline FARAPULSE PFA system in atrial fibrillation ablation procedures. Developing a fluoroscopy-based practical guide would: (1) Democratize access to PFA technology, enabling safe and effective implementation across a broader range of clinical settings, including those without intracardiac echocardiography or 3-dimensional mapping support; (2) Reduce procedural heterogeneity by offering reproducible best practices; (3) Facilitate meaningful intercenter comparisons of procedural efficacy and safety, aiding in the identification of optimal approaches and improving the quality of clinical data for ongoing research, registries, and real-world performance monitoring of PFA technologies; and (4) Ultimately improve patient outcomes through standardized, accessible, and evidence-based practices.
