Why the study?
Does pulsed-field ablation compared to cryoballoon ablation improve acute and chronic pulmonary vein isolation and lesion geometry in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation?
Population
Patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation undergoing pulmonary vein isolation
Comparison
Fluoroscopy-guided pulmonary vein isolation with… vs Fluoroscopy-guided pulmonary vein isolation with…
Design
RCT, 1:1
Key result
Pulsed-field ablation resulted in 0% acute residual pulmonary vein conduction versus 16% with cryoballoon ablation (P=0.11), and similar chronic durability at repeat ablation (15% vs 14%).
Authors
Loading...
Acute 3D-EAM shows complete PVI after PFA but residual conduction in 16% after CBA; leaves open durability and outcome impact.
RCT
1:1
Yes
Does pulsed-field ablation compared to cryoballoon ablation improve acute and chronic pulmonary vein isolation and lesion geometry in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation?
Absolute Event Rate: 0% vs 16%
p-value: p=0.11
Pulsed-field ablation and cryoballoon ablation demonstrate similar chronic pulmonary vein isolation durability, although PFA creates broader acute left-sided lesions and carries a risk of unintentional posterior wall block in small atria.
Kueffer et al. (2026) conducted an RCT in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Pulsed-field ablation (PFA) vs. Cryoballoon ablation (CBA) was evaluated on Residual pulmonary vein conduction in acute post-ablation mapping (p=0.11). Pulsed-field ablation resulted in 0% acute residual pulmonary vein conduction versus 16% with cryoballoon ablation (P=0.11), and similar chronic durability at repeat ablation (15% vs 14%).
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: