Pulsed Field Vs Conventional Thermal Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: Recurrent Atrial Arrhythmia Burden

BackgroundThe ADVENT randomized trial revealed no significant difference in 1-year freedom from atrial arrhythmias (AA) between thermal (RF/Cryo) and pulsed field ablation (PFA). However, recent studies indicate that the post-ablation AA burden is a better predictor of clinical outcomes than the dichotomous endpoint of 30-second AA recurrence.ObjectivesTo determine i) the impact of post-ablation AA burden on outcomes, and ii) the effect of ablation modality on AA burden.MethodsIn ADVENT, symptomatic drug-refractory paroxysmal AF (PAF) patients underwent PFA or thermal ablation. Post-ablation transtelephonic ECG monitor (TTM) recordings were collected weekly or for symptoms, and 72-hour Holters were at 6- and 12-months. AA burden was calculated from percentage AA on Holters and TTMs. Quality-of-life assessments were at baseline and 12-months.ResultsFrom 593 randomized patients (299 PFA, 294 thermal), using aggregate PFA/thermal data, an AA burden exceeding 0.1% was associated with a significantly reduced quality-of-life and an increase in clinical interventions: redo ablation, cardioversion and hospitalization. There were more patients with residual AA burden <0.1% with PFA than thermal ablation (OR 1.5, 95%CI: 1.0, 2.3; p=0.04). Evaluation of outcomes by baseline demographics revealed that patients with prior failed Class I/III AADs had less residual AA burden after PFA compared to thermal ablation (OR 2.5, 95%CI: 1.4, 4.3; p=0.002); patients receiving only Class II/IV AADs pre-ablation had no difference in AA burden between ablation groups.ConclusionCompared to thermal ablation, PFA more often resulted in an AA burden less than the clinically-significant threshold of 0.1% burden.