Patient Comfort and Response Pattern Following Pulsed-Field Ablation Compared to Radiofrequency Ablation for Atrial...

Area of Science:

• Cardiology
• Medical Devices
• Electrophysiology

Background:

• Atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation techniques include pulsed-field ablation (PFA) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA).
• Direct comparisons of patient-reported outcomes between PFA and RFA are limited.
• Understanding patient experience is crucial for optimizing AF treatment strategies.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare patient experience after PFA versus RFA for AF ablation under general anesthesia.
• To assess differences in postprocedural pain, medication needs, and emergency department (ED) visits.
• To evaluate early procedural recovery between the two ablation modalities.

Main Methods:

• Retrospective study of 200 consecutive patients (100 PFA, 100 RFA) undergoing AF ablation under general anesthesia.
• Data collected from electronic medical records, focusing on primary endpoints.
• Primary endpoints included pain scores, analgesic medication use, and ED visit frequency for procedure-related concerns.

Main Results:

• Patients undergoing RFA had a significantly higher rate of ED visits (17%) compared to PFA (6%).
• No significant differences were observed in postprocedural pain scores or analgesic requests.
• Similar rates of post-procedure care team encounters were noted between PFA and RFA groups.

Conclusions:

• PFA for AF ablation under general anesthesia was associated with fewer ED visits compared to RFA.
• These findings suggest a potentially improved procedural recovery with PFA.
• Larger prospective studies utilizing patient-reported outcome measures are recommended to confirm these results.