Contemporary catheter ablation of complex atrial tachycardias after prior atrial fibrillation ablation: pulsed field vs. radiofrequency current energy ablation guided by high-density mapping

Abstract

Aims Catheter ablation (CA) of post-ablation left atrial tachycardias (LATs) can be challenging. So far, pulsed field ablation (PFA) has not been compared to standard point-by-point radiofrequency current (RFC) energy for LAT ablation. To compare efficacy of PFA vs. RFC in patients undergoing CA for LAT. Methods and results Consecutive patients undergoing LAT-CA were prospectively enrolled (09/2021–02/2023). After electro-anatomical high-density mapping, ablation with either a pentaspline PFA catheter or RFC was performed. Patients were matched 1:1. Ablation was performed at the assumed critical isthmus site with additional ablation, if necessary. Right atrial tachycardia (RAT) was ablated with RFC. Acute and chronic success were assessed. Fifty-six patients (n = 28 each group, age 70 ± 9 years, 75% male) were enrolled. A total of 77 AT (n = 67 LAT, n = 10 RAT; 77% macroreentries) occurred with n = 32 LAT in the PFA group and n = 35 LAT in the RFC group. Of all LAT, 94% (PFA group) vs. 91% (RFC group) successfully terminated to sinus rhythm or another AT during ablation (P = 1.0). Procedure times were shorter (PFA: 121 ± 41 vs. RFC: 190 ± 44 min, P < 0.0001) and fluoroscopy times longer in the PFA group (PFA: 15 ± 9 vs. RFC: 11 ± 6 min, P = 0.04). There were no major complications. After one-year follow-up, estimated arrhythmia free survival was 63% (PFA group) and 87% (RFC group), [hazard ratio 2.91 (95% CI: 1.11–7.65), P = 0.0473]. Conclusion Pulsed field ablation of post-ablation LAT using a pentaspline catheter is feasible, safe, and faster but less effective compared to standard RFC ablation after one year of follow-up. Future catheter designs and optimization of the electrical field may further improve practicability and efficacy of PFA for LAT.