Related Experiment Video
Updated: Sep 19, 2026

Robotic Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation
Published on: May 29, 2015
Pulsed Field Ablation with the Pentaspline Catheter vs Radiofrequency Ablation for Recurrent Atrial Fibrillation
Wenbo Cheng1, Xue Chen1, Shiyi Wang2
1Department of Cardiology, Baoshan Branch, Ren Ji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Background:
Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a non-thermal energy modality for catheter ablation. Although recent studies have demonstrated that PFA is noninferior to radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for the initial treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF), its comparative efficacy and safety in patients who had AF recurrence following the initial ablation procedure remain unknown.
Methods:
From July 1, 2024 to September 30, 2024, 223 consecutive patients who had AF recurrence following the initial ablation procedure were prospectively enrolled from 2 participating centres and underwent either PFA using the pentaspline catheter (PFA group, n = 77) or RFA (RFA group, n = 146), based on clinical judgment. The effectiveness endpoint was freedom from AF/atrial tachycardia (AT) recurrence at 12 months.
Results:
At 12 months, no significant difference was present in the rate of freedom from AF/AT recurrence between the PFA and RFA groups (71.4% vs 67.8%; log-rank P = 0.514; hazard ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.52-1.38). Similarly, the incidence of safety endpoints did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (2.6% vs 3.4%; P = 0.947).
Conclusions:
In patients who had AF recurrence following the initial ablation procedure, PFA using a pentaspline catheter demonstrated comparable effectiveness and safety to RFA, with similar rates of freedom from AF/AT recurrence and adverse events at 12 months.
Related Concept Videos
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation III: AED Use
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation IV: Pharmacological Management

