Why the study?
Does ablation with a focal lattice-tip dual energy catheter improve persistent isolation of extra-pulmonary areas compared to a single shot pentaspline PFA catheter in non-paroxysmal AF patients undergoing redo ablation?
Population
297 consecutive non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation patients undergoing redo ablation procedure, 54.2% male.
Comparison
Ablation with a focal lattice-tip dual energy… vs Ablation with a single shot pentaspline PFA…
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
98±24 days
Key result
A focal lattice-tip dual-energy catheter yielded higher persistent LAA isolation (63.5% vs 0.9%), MI block (52.2% vs 1.7%), and CS isolation (45% vs 1.7%) than a pentaspline PFA catheter.
Authors
Loading...
Low persistent LAA isolation with lattice-tip PFA warrants clinical caution; leaves open durability questions for randomized trials.
Cohort (n=297)
Does ablation with a focal lattice-tip dual energy catheter improve persistent isolation of extra-pulmonary areas compared to a single shot pentaspline PFA catheter in non-paroxysmal AF patients undergoing redo ablation?
Absolute Event Rate: 63.5% vs 0.9%
A focal lattice-tip dual-energy catheter significantly improves the incidence of persistent isolation in extra-pulmonary areas compared to a single-shot pentaspline PFA catheter in patients undergoing redo AF ablation.
Fazia et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (n=297). Focal lattice-tip dual energy catheter vs. Single shot pentaspline PFA catheter was evaluated on Persistent isolation of left atrial appendage (LAA) at remapping. A focal lattice-tip dual-energy catheter yielded higher persistent LAA isolation (63.5% vs 0.9%), MI block (52.2% vs 1.7%), and CS isolation (45% vs 1.7%) than a pentaspline PFA catheter.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: