Perspectives on pulsed field ablation: how to judge endpoints

Abstract

Purpose of review This review highlights pulse field ablation's (PFA) significance in treating atrial fibrillation. PFA uses short-pulsed electrical fields, offering safety advantages over thermal methods. Multicenter studies’ findings on PFA's safety, efficiency, and efficacy, compared with thermal techniques, are discussed. Recent findings The review encompasses major PFA systems utilized in multicenter studies: penta-spline, circular, and lattice catheters. These studies affirm PFA's safety, with minimal complications like esophageal injury, phrenic nerve complications, and pulmonary vein stenosis. PFA also demonstrates procedural efficiency benefits because of rapid pulse delivery. However, PFA's efficacy appears on par with thermal ablation, showing similar rates of atrial arrhythmia recurrence during follow-up periods. The studies explore diverse postablation monitoring strategies, underscoring the necessity for standardized monitoring or consistent transformation of arrhythmia data. Summary In conclusion, PFA marks a promising era for atrial fibrillation treatment with improved safety and efficiency. Efficacy is comparable to thermal methods, though technology advancements could alter this. PFA's potential as a safer and faster alternative positions it as a dominant atrial fibrillation ablation technology. Careful analysis and standardized monitoring are vital to assess PFA's potential and clinical implications