Collateral effects on non-target tissue are worse with pulsed-field ablation than with radiofrequency ablation, according to a study published April 24 in JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology.
The multicenter study, led by researchers from the Kansas City (Kan.) Heart Rhythm Institute, analyzed data from 871 patients who underwent pulsed-field ablation or radiofrequency ablation beginning March 2024 and onward.
Here are four notes on the study:
- Of the 773 patients who underwent pulsed-field ablation, 70.9% were with a pentaspline system, 14.1% with a circular multielectrode, 12.4% with a spherical and 2.3% with a variable loop catheter.
- Post-procedural changes associated with pulsed-field ablation included higher levels of troponin, lactate dehydrogenase and haptoglobin biomarkers, compared to the levels associated with radiofrequency ablation.
These changes were dose-dependent and varied across the pulsed-field ablation systems used. - There was also significant change in left atrial ejection fraction associated with pulsed-field ablation compared to radiofrequency ablation, at -5.0% and -20.0%, respectively.
- “As [pulsed-field ablation] becomes mainstream, future studies appraising these effects and understanding the short term and long-term implications are needed,” the study authors wrote.
Read the full study here.
At the Becker's 11th Annual IT + Revenue Cycle Conference: The Future of AI & Digital Health, taking place September 14–17 in Chicago, healthcare executives and digital leaders from across the country will come together to explore how AI, interoperability, cybersecurity, and revenue cycle innovation are transforming care delivery, strengthening financial performance, and driving the next era of digital health. Apply for complimentary registration now.