Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Sep 19.
doi: 10.1111/jce.70078. Online ahead of print.

Comparison of Two Different Pulsed Field Ablation Systems: The Dual Pulse System Study

Behnam Subin  1   2 , Corinne Isenegger  1   2 , David Spreen  1   2 , Philipp Krisai  1   2 , Sven Knecht  1   2 , Gian Völlmin  1   2 , Nicolas Schaerli  1   2 , Felix Mahfoud  1   2 , Michael Kühne  1   2 , Christian Sticherling  1   2 , Patrick Badertscher  1   2
Affiliations

Comparison of Two Different Pulsed Field Ablation Systems: The Dual Pulse System Study

Behnam Subin et al. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. .

Abstract

Background: Recently, multiple pulsed field ablation (PFA)-system were introduced for catheter ablation (CA) of atrial fibrillation (AF). However, data comparing procedural performance, the extent of low-voltage areas (LVA), and myocardial injury between different PFA-systems in a real-world setting remain scarce.

Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing CA for AF were enrolled. PFA was performed using either a Pentaspline catheter-system (PCS) or a loop catheter-system (LCS). The extent of acute antral LVA was assessed using a 3D-electroanatomical mapping system. High-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT) was measured the day after the procedure to assess myocardial injury.

Results: A total of 120 patients (median age 67 [59-73] years, 29% female) underwent de novo pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). The PCS-group included 90 patients, while the LCS-group included 30 patients. Acute PVI was achieved in all patients (100%). Procedural times were significantly shorter in the PCS compared to the LCS-group, including total procedure duration (57 [48-67] vs 66 [52-83] min, p = 0.016), left atrial dwell time (38 [32-48] vs 54 [38-65] min, p < 0.001), and ablation duration (17 [12-23] vs 24 [20-33] min, p < 0.001). Acute antral LVA and myocardial injury were significantly lower in the PCS compared to the LCS-group (6.6 [5.0-8.9] vs. 19.2 [16.8-25.4] cm², p < 0.001 and hs-cTnT of 1282 [892-1894] vs 1588 [1281-2110] ng/L, p = 0.029.

Conclusion: Significant differences were observed between two commercially available PFA-systems. While PCS was associated with significantly shorter procedural time, LCS resulted in a greater extent of acute antral LVA and myocardial injury levels.

Keywords: atrial fibrillation; catheter ablation; pulmonary vein isolation; pulsed field ablation.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. I. C. Van Gelder, M. Rienstra, K. V. Bunting, et al., “2024 ESC Guidelines for the Management of Atrial Fibrillation Developed in Collaboration With the European Association for Cardio‐Thoracic Surgery (EACTS): Developed by the Task Force for the Management of Atrial Fibrillation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), With the Special Contribution of the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the ESC. Endorsed by the European Stroke Organisation (ESO),” European Heart Journal 45, no. 36 (2024): 3314–3414, https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae176.
    1. L. Urbanek, S. Bordignon, D. Schaack, et al., “Pulsed Field Versus Cryoballoon Pulmonary Vein Isolation for Atrial Fibrillation: Efficacy, Safety, and Long‐Term Follow‐Up in a 400‐Patient Cohort,” Circulation: Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology 16, no. 7 (2023): 389–398, https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCEP.123.011920.
    1. K. R. Julian Chun, D. Miklavčič, K. Vlachos, et al., “State‐of‐the‐Art Pulsed Field Ablation for Cardiac Arrhythmias: Ongoing Evolution and Future Perspective,” EP Europace 26, no. 6 (2024): euae134, https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euae134.
    1. V. Y. Reddy, E. P. Gerstenfeld, A. Natale, et al., “Pulsed Field or Conventional Thermal Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation,” New England Journal of Medicine 389, no. 18 (2023): 1660–1671, https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2307291.
    1. A. Metzner, M. Fiala, J. Vijgen, et al., “Long‐Term Outcomes of the Pentaspline Pulsed‐Field Ablation Catheter for the Treatment of Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation: Results of the Prospective, Multicentre Fara‐Freedom Study,” EP Europace 26, no. 3 (2024): euae053, https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euae053.

LinkOut - more resources